₦airaland Forum

Bell32 you have hit the nail right on its head. Not every organization that claims to uphold biblical teachings actually fulfill such claims, and the sad thing is that there are millions of professed Christians who are kept in darkness and are not even aware of it.

Calling Lady, we need you to respond to our query about baptism! We need your support on this teaching. Incidentally, why does the Catholic organization baptize babies, when they have no idea of right and wrong? Babies can't repent can they?

Beautiful selection of scriptures.

And may I add that being born of the water simply means that baptism becomes a gateway to enter the body of Christ. Its a public declaration that one has repented and has decided to walk with Christ and is prepared to become a member of His church.

Now let us compare the RCC's catechisms, and the bible to see if there is any reconciliation between what the Catholics teach and advocate, and what the bible has to say.

Let us start with how the Catholics view baptism versus what the bible has said about it. I'd also like the Catholic die-hards to explain the obvious variation, if they can.

1. This catechism tenet says, Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte 'a new creature,'an adopted son of God, who has become a 'partaker of the divine nature,' member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit." (Pg.354, #1265)

The bible says, "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." --1 John 1:7

-----------------------

2. The catechism says, ""By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin." (Pg. 353, #1263. see also pg. 279, #985).

The bible says, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" --Colossians 1:14

------------------------

3. The catechism says, "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life." (Pg.356, #1274)

The bible says, ", in whom also after that ye believed, YE WERE SEALED with that HOLY SPIRIT of promise." --Ephesians 1:13

My question is this, what if a person repented with Godly sorrow, and truly felt remorse for past sins, and was making preparations to get baptized, but died unexpectedly, are we to believe based on catholic doctrines, that such a person cannot be sealed? The bible makes it unequivocally clear, that the first step to being sealed occurs when we believe the gospel under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

If "water baptism" is necessary for salvation as the Catholic religion insists, why did the great apostle Paul say:

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, "
--1 Cor. 1:17

"I thank God that I baptized NONE OF YOU, but Crispus and Gaius;"
--1 Cor. 1:12

Am I the only one seeing a gross variation here? Am I insulting, or being rude to Catholics when I bring up genuine concerns about their teachings, as some are accusing wildly?

I will add more about baptism later, but let me get some feed back from you guys.

@ ttalks

Exactly correct! If a person fails to repent when he or she hears the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, which incidentally is the keys that Jesus refers to, there remains no forgiveness of sins. Such sins are retained both on earth as well as in heaven.

@ Lady

Catechism is a compilation of catholic doctrine, my problem is not with when u have the catechim, it's when u go to non-catholic websites and get information that is not in the catechism but is posed as something from the catechism.

So now you're calling us liars. When we expose what is in your catechisms, and not just your own written documents, but from the true testimonies from those who have been in the system, your excuse is that we visit websites with incorrect information.  Here is a testimony from a faithful and sincere former nun that will bear witness to the kind of evil that exists in the RCC. This is in not designed to bash members of the RCC, but to warn them of the huge deception that prevails within.


"INTRODUCTION

First of all I always want to tell folks that I am not giving this testimony because I have any ill feeling in my heart toward the Roman Catholic people. I couldn't be a Christian if I still had bitterness in my heart.  God delivered me from all bitterness and strife one day and made Himself real to me in the power of the Holy Spirit.  And so, when I give this testimony, I'm giving it because after God saved me, He delivered me out of the convent and out of bondage to darkness, the Lord laid a burden upon my heart to give this testimony that others might know what plight the convents are.  And so as you listen carefully this afternoon, I trust that I'll not say one thing that will leave any feeling in your heart whatsoever that I don't carry a burden for the Roman Catholic people.  I don't like the things they do.  I don't agree with the things they teach, but I covet their souls for Jesus.  I'm interested in their souls.  I believe that when Jesus went to Calvary, He died that you and I might know Him.   And therefore they're just as precious as your soul and my soul.  So I'm interested.

DESIRE TO WORK FOR GOD

First of all, as we get into this testimony, having been born into Roman Catholicism, I didn't know anything else, not knowing the Word of God, because we didn't have the Bible in our home.  We had never heard anything about this wonderful plan of salvation.  And so, naturally, I grew up in that Roman Catholic home as a child knowing only the catechism, knowing only the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  And because I loved the Lord, and because I wanted to do something for Him--I wanted to give Him my life--I didn't know of any other way for a Roman Catholic girl to give her life to God other than by entering a convent.

After going to the confessional box there, naturally I'm under the influence of my Father confessor, the Roman Catholic priest--his influence over my life--one day I made up my mind, through his influence (and one of my teachers in the parochial school) that I wanted to be a little sister. At that time I thought of being a sister of the Open Order.  But as I went on into this up until the time I took my White Veil at sixteen and a half years of age, everything was beautiful.  I really didn't have any fear in my heart whatsoever.  Everything that was taught to me was similar to along the lines of what I had been taught in the Church before I had entered the convent.

And so one day, after making up my mind to enter a convent--I remember that particular day--two of the sisters came home with me from school.  They were my teachers.  And when we arrived at my father's home that afternoon, our Father confessor was in the home likewise.  I often say, when I was a little girl, children were seen and not heard.  You didn't talk when you was a child, at least you didn't in my family, in my home, unless you were spoken to.  And I remember  I listened to them carry on a conversation.  And then I had moved over close enough to my father to ask him if I could say something.  That was a bit out of the ordinary.  And he permitted me to talk.  And I said, "Dad, I want to go into a convent."  And I'll tell you that priest took it up quickly.  They had already been influencing me.

My father broke down and began to cry, not because he was sad, but he was very happy.  My mother came over and took me in her arms and she too wept tears---she was very happy.  Those were not tears of sadness [but] because their little girl was giving her life to the convent to pray for lost humanity.  And naturally, my family was very thrilled about it.  And I was too.

INTO THE CONVENT

But anyway, I didn't go for about a year after that.  And then the time come when I got myself ready and my mother prepared things for me.  They took me. They didn't have a place close enough to my father's and mother's home, so I think they took me around a thousand miles away from home where I entered a convent boarding school.  I lacked about three months being thirteen years of age--just a girl.  I look back on it now, and think, my, homesick.  I was so homesick!  Well, my mommy and daddy, they stayed three days with me and then they left.  I became so homesick. Naturally. I was just a baby away from home.  When I was a little girl, you know, I never spent a night away from my mother.  And I surely had never gone any place without my family.  And naturally there was close ties in my family, and I was very lonely and very homesick.  But I'll never forget [when] mother told me, "Good-bye."  And I knew they were traveling a long distance away from me.  And I had never realized in my heart I'll never see them again. Naturally I hadn't planned it like that because I'd planned to be a sister of the Open Order.

Listen carefully to this portion of the testimony then you'll understand just why I'm saying some of the things that I am saying.  Now oftentimes we say the priest selects his materials through the confessional box, because at seven years of age I went to confessional.  At seven years of age I would always, when I'd come into the church first, I'd sit over at the feet of a crucifix, rather the Virgin Mary and then over at the feet of the crucifix, and I'd ask the Virgin Mary to help me make a good confession, because I was a child and my heart was honest.  And I knew that the priest taught us to always make a good confession--keep nothing back--tell everything if I expected absolution from any sin that I might have committed. And so I would ask the Virgin Mary to help me make a good confession.  And I would ask Jesus to help me make a good confession.

And, you know, I'll assure you after I lived in the convent for a short period of time, I had to go on with my schooling I had just finished the eighth grade.  And they promised me to give me a high school education and some college education. But I ended up less college.   I got mostly just high school training.  And they gave that to me all right.  I took it under some terrible difficulties and strains and all that and it was rather difficult. But they gave it to me for which I appreciate it very very much.  But I'll assure you [afterwards] they put me through the crucial training that we must go through to become a little initiate [or viviciate?] entering a convent.  The training is very outstanding as far as a nun is concerned.  And you know what it's all about after you've been in there a little while.

So now I've entered the convent.  And for just a few minutes we want to tell you just a little bit how we lived--what we eat, how we sleep.  As I take you into the convent, and tell you those things, you'll understand a little bit more about my testimony.

THE WHITE VEIL

First, as I entered the convent, as just a small child and went on to school, I was being trained.  But the day came when I was about fourteen and a half when the Mother Superior began telling me about the White Veil.  And I didn't know too much about it.  By taking the White Veil, they told me that I would become the spouse or the Bride of Jesus Christ.  There would be a ceremony.   And I would be dressed in a wedding garment.

And on this particular morning, they told me at nine o'clock they would dress me up in a wedding garment.  Now, you're wondering where that came from, and how they got the wedding clothes for the little nun. Well, Mother Superior sits down and writes a letter to my father and tells him how much money she wants.  And then, whatever she asks, my father sends it.  And she, the little buying sister, goes out and buys the material and the wedding garments are made by the nuns of the cloister.  (I'm still Open Order now.)

And of course, whatever they asked him he would send out the money for the wedding garment.  We don't know these things at the very beginning of our testimony, but after you live in a convent for a little while, you learn to know they would ask my father for a hundred dollars and he'd send it.  They would use maybe a third of that for the wedding garment.  They would keep the rest of it, and my father would never know the difference. Neither did I until I'd lived in a convent for a period of time and I had to make some of the wedding clothes.  And then I knew the value of them, and what they cost.  And I knew of the money that came in because I was one of the older nuns.

The time came, of course, when I walked down that aisle and I was dressed in a wedding garment. And you know, in the convent, I used to walk the fourteen stations of the cross--the fourteen steps that Jesus carried the cross of Calvary--but after I made up my mind to take the White Veil, never again did I walk.  I wanted to be worthy.  I wanted to be holy enough to become the spouse, the bride, of Jesus Christ.  And so I would get down on my knees and would crawl the fourteen  stations--quite a distance.  But I crawled them every Friday morning.  I felt it would make me holy.  I felt it would draw me closer to God.  It would make me worthy of the step that I was going to take.  And that's what I wanted more than anything in the world.  I would like to impress on your hearts--every little girl that enters a convent that I know anything about, that child has the desire to live for God.  That child has a desire to give her heart and mind and soul to God.

Now many, many people make this remark and we hear it from various types of folks who say only bad women go into convents.   That isn't true.  There are movie stars who go into convents. And they've lived out in the world and no doubt they are sinners and all of that. But they go in when they're women--they know what they're doing. And they go in only because the Roman Catholic Church is going to receive not only thousands, but yea well up into the millions of dollars.  And they don't mind who they take in as they can get a lot of money out of that individual.

But the ordinary little girl, that goes in as a child--she's just a child--and she goes in there with her heart and mind and soul just as clean as any child could be.  I say that because sometimes we hear a lot of things that are really not true.

Now, after we become the spouse of Jesus Christ--I want you to listen carefully to this, and then you can follow me into the rest of the testimony--we are now looked upon as married women.   We are the spouse or the Bride of Jesus Christ.

BECOMING THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

Now the priest teaches every little girl that will take the White Veil they'll become the bride of Christ.  He teaches her to believe that her family will be saved.  It doesn't make any difference how many banks they rob, how many stores they rob.  It doesn't make any difference how they drink and smoke and carouse and live out in this sinful world and do all the things that sinners do.  It doesn't make a bit of difference.  Our family will be saved if we continue to live in the convent and give our lives to the convent and to the Church--we can rest assured that other members of our immediate family will be saved.

And you know that there are many little children that are influenced and enticed to go into convents because we realize that it will be the salvation for our families.  And sometimes, in a Roman Catholic family, the children grow up and leave the Roman Catholic Church and go out into the deepest of sin.  And so every little girl who enters into the convent is hoping by her sacrificing so much--home and mother and daddy--everything that a child loves--her family will be saved regardless of what sins they commit.  And of course we're children and our minds are immature and we don't know any better.  It's so easy to instill things like this into the hearts and minds of little children , and the priests are really very good at it.

And of course we looked upon our priest--our Father confessor--I looked upon him as God.  He's the only god I knew anything about.  To me he was infallible.  I didn't think he could sin.  I didn't think that he would lie. I didn't think that he ever made a mistake.  I looked upon him as the holiest of holies, because I didn't know a god, but I did know the Roman  Catholic priest.  And to me, I looked to him for  everything that I asked of God, so to speak, I believed the priest could give it to me.

And so the day comes with all of us. Now as we are going in, I want you to listen carefully--after taking the White Veil things are beautiful.   I'm sixteen and a half years of age.  Everyone's good to me. And I'm living in the convent and I haven't seen anything yet, because no little girl--we're not subject to a Roman Catholic Priest until we're twenty-one years of age.  And as we get in this next vow, then you'll understand, we don't know about this.  This is kept from the little sisters until we've taken our Black Veil and then it's too late.

I don't carry the keys to those double doors  and there's no way for me to come out.  The priest will tell all over the whole United States and other countries--that sisters and nuns, rather, can walk out of convents when they want to.  I spent twenty-two years there, I did everything that I could do to get out.  I've carried tablespoons with me into the dungeon and tried to dig down into that dirt because it's no floors in those cases. But I never yet found myself digging far enough to dig out of a convent with a tablespoon and that's about the only incident. Because when we're using the spade--and we do have to do hard, heavy work--when we use a spade we're being guarded--we're being watched by two older nuns and they're going to report on us--and I'll assure you you're not going to try and dig out with a spade.  You wouldn't get very far anyway, because they built and made those convents so little nuns can never escape.  That was their purpose in building them.  And they'll never get out unless God makes a way.  But I believe God's making a way for nuns and little girls to come out of the convent.

THE BLACK VEIL

Alright, now when the time comes, I think I was eighteen when the Mother began talking to me.  I planned to come out, see, after my white veil I wanted to be a little nursing assistant in the Roman Church.  But the Mother Superior--I suppose she was watching my life--I suppose she realized I had much endurance, I had a strong body.  And I believe the woman was watching me, because one day she asked me into her office.  And she began to tell me, "Charlotte, you have a strong body."  And she said, "I believe you have the possibilities of making a good nun.  Of course you will.  I believe you're the type that would be willing to give up home--give up mother and daddy--give up everything you love out in the world--and the world so to speak--and hide yourself away behind convent doors.  Because I believe you're the kind that would hide back there and be willing to sacrifice and live in crucial poverty that you might pray for lost humanity."  She said, "I believe you're the kind that would be willing to suffer."  Because we're taught to believe, as nuns, that as we suffer our loved ones and your loved ones that are already in a priest's purgatory will be delivered from purgatory sooner because of our suffering.

She knew I was willing to suffer.  I didn't murmur.  I didn't complain.  She knew all about it.  She's watching my life, and that's the reason she began to tell me about the Black Veil.  And then, of course, you know, I didn't know too much about a cloistered nun.  I didn't know their lives.  I didn't know how they live.  I didn't know what they done, but, you know, this woman proceeded to tell me.

Now we hear a lot of people try to tell me in the various places that we travel and go, I hear a lot of Roman Catholics try to tell me, "I've been in so many cloisters.  I know all about them."  But you know a Roman Catholic can lie to you.  And they don't have to go to confession and tell the priest about the lie that they've told, because they're lying to protect their faith.  They can tell any lie they want to to protect their faith and never go to the confessional box and tell the priest about it.

They can do more than that.  They can steal up to forty dollars.  And they don't have to tell the priest about it.  They don't have to say one word about it in the confessional box.  They are taught that.  Every Roman Catholic knows it.  And every Roman Catholic--you'd be horrified to know how many of them steal up to that amount.  And many of them lie.  We've dealt with them.  I've dealt with hundreds and hundreds of them.  I see a good many of them fall in the altar and cry out to God to save them.  And you know before they get saved, they look into my face and hold my hand and lie to me.  But after God gets a hold of their heart, then they want to make right what they told me because they realize they've lied about it.  But as long as they're Roman Catholic, they're permitted to lie.  And it's the saddest thing. You can't expect them to know God, because God does not condone sin.

I don't care who you are.  I don't believe God condones sin.  And I don't believe He's going to condone it in the Roman Catholic people, even though they're being misled and they're being blinded and led into ways that are going to lead them into a devil's hell. I believe that with all of my heart, because I've lived in a convent.  I know something about how these people live and what they do.

Now the day comes.  She told me, "Charlotte, you have to be willing to spill your blood.  Jesus shed His upon Calvary."  She said, "You have to be willing to do penance.  Heavy penance,"  She said, "You'll have to be willing to live in crucial poverty." Now already I'm living in the pit of poverty, but I thought that was going to make me holier, and draw me closer to God, and would make me a better nun. And so I'm willing to live in that poverty.

LAYING IN A CASKET

And then on this particular morning, she told me what I would be wearing. She said, "You'll spend nine hours in a casket."  And she explained a number of things to me.  That's the most I knew about it.  And I didn't find that out until I had taken my White Veil.

And so, on this particular morning, I'm twenty-one years of age.  But sixty days previous to my being twenty-one years of age, I'm going to sign some papers that they place in front of me.  And those papers are this--I'm going to sign away every bit of inheritance that I might have received from my family after they're dead.  Of course I signed that over to the Roman Catholic Church.  And oftentimes I say the Roman Catholic priests are enticing girls--not only their background, not only their strong bodies, their strong minds and strong wills--but he's enticing girls where mothers and fathers have much property.  And they are constantly fishing for the material things of this life.  Why?  Because when that child enters the convent they're going to get a portion of her money--of her father's money.

And I often say even salvation in the Roman Catholic Church is going to cost you plenty of money.  More than you know anything about.  And so they don't mind commercializing off of that child and the inheritance that would have come to her."

The above is simply a fraction of the testimony,

I own a catechism, and I check, most of what u had are not in the catechism, and for the ones that are in the catechim those beliefs u don't hold to because you don't know much about your own faith. What's in the catechim isn't false, it's actually truth because it is from the Bible, the problem is you don't understand the Bible and when parts of it are shown to you, you refuse to interpret it and you simply dodge the questions you ask.

But you don't own the older catechisms in which most of the teachings and dogmas are found.

Most of you quote Bible passages to counter the Bible passages we post for you, you make it seem as if the Bible is contradictory, when it isn't.

Its funny how your actions betray you.  Isn't it funny how Catholic priests don't tell their members its wrong to smoke and drink, and its fine to live anyhow as long as you confess and say a few hail Mary's, all is well.  Penance is just around the corner you see, so don't worry.

The problem is in the interpretation of the Bible. I happen to choose the interpretation that has been there since the apostles, you choose your own personal interpretation. If you guys will start applying logic and start being honest with yourselves and your interpretation, you will see that you believe in what we believe in.

You keep repeating the same old stuff that applies to the RCC. It is they who continue to nullify God's words with their pagan traditions.  The deception is so deeply rooted that no one is qualified to see the obvious variation from truth. Revelation rightly speaks of spiritual drunkenness on the part of those who see the many wrongs being committed, and still continue to defend it.

When did catholic doctrine become newsmagazines? Where in the catechism or books written by Catholics does it say that we should go and kill those protestants.

I dare say not just in your catechisms, but here is just a part of the Jesuit oath, "I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus, "

Ever heard of Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I, ask the Irish and the Scots why they were afraid of the Brits. Ask the KKK who they killed before they turned towards black people.

Wise old king if you ask me who was prepared to defend his people against all evil. Besides, there is a vast difference between defending against inquisitions, than say killing people based on their right to choose the bible. Protestant monarchs, God bless their souls, were insightful enough to see what the RCC was up to.

And yes it continued for hundreds of years, and is still going on right now, especially in the South of the U.S,  I know this because I live in Florida, and I have lost friendships for converting to the Catholic faiths.

When last have you heard on the news that Catholic priests were being killed in vast numbers? There can be no comparison to the vast amount of murders that were waged agaiinst bible-believing Christians. The latest round of sexual scandals is all we have heard of, and nothing more. Name a period as far back as you can recall. If anything its both protestants and Catholics that are killed alike in those regions of political instability. Hardly do we hear that priests are killed because of their faith.

They have labeled me devil, and all sorts of things. Did you know that John F. Kennedy did for the Catholics what Obama has done for blacks? That's right, Catholics everyday are discriminated against, and while majority of us are not being killed right now because of the stricter laws and the CSI unit, we are still being persecuted by you all. This board is evidence of the hatred towards us. Do a research on this board and tell me if you will find a Catholic thread started to bash Protestants. But I can assure you, you will find many threads bashing Catholics.

Welcome to the club. Being disagreed with in strong terms doesn't qualify you as the truth bearer. The Witnesses, and others have been discriminated against, but does that make them out to be bearers of God's oracles?

If what you were refering to from the Catholics is the Crusades, that in itself isn't a calling from the Church to kill and maim people. The first crusade was called by the Pope to defend Christians from muslims, and that's the reason why we are all not screaming "allahu akbar" right now and being subject to sharia law, so be grateful.

Its quite the opposite! The Moslems prevented the expansion of the inquisitions. Revelation describes them as the locusts from the pit. The Arabs then, as against the extreme forms of Islam today became God's tool in sparing the untold anhilation that would have befallen bible-believing Christians.

The crusades was hijacked by greedy politicians who decided to use the name of the Church to gain riches and such, the Pope called for them to stop and decreed that any of them who continued with that will be excommunicated. So in reality they didn't belong to the Catholic church.

History says otherwise Lady. Pope John Paul apologized did he not? History makes it abundantly clear that the popes initiated the inquisitions to quell the growing reformation. You're not talking to the average poster lady. Please don't insult our intelligence. While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.

Why did the Pope apologise, because we are a humble people, and because you guys have so much hatred in your heart that you refuse to listen to reason, we apologised.

Hahahahha, really now! I will give you an "A" for effort.  

But if we go by your reasoning and say that because some church members (excommunicated) performed such atrocious acts, then the whole Church must be evil, then all white people must be evil because of the atrocious acts by their ancestors.

What utter nonsense! Who would excummunicated Catholics commit their wicked acts on may I ask?

Be careful not to let hatred cloud your judgment.

Rest assured we are doing it out of love for Catholic members.

But since you want to know what acts have been committed against the church, then take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

You can definitely use the time you spend finding hateful things about the church, to search for the atrocious acts done against it.

Reporting the murders of innocent people for having expressed their desire to read the bible is just a fraction of the many evils committed by the RC leadership. The point is were it not for the sinister traditions of the RCC in the first place, none of these things would be up for discussion now.

Bible-believing Christians have a God-given duty to expose the RCC evils for what they are, and we are doing it with the pen and not with the sword.

@ Lady

Catechism is a compilation of catholic doctrine, my problem is not with when u have the catechim, it's when u go to non-catholic websites and get information that is not in the catechism but is posed as something from the catechism.

So now you're calling us liars. When we expose what is in your catechisms, and not just your own written documents, but from the true testimonies from those who have been in the system, your excuse is that we visit websites with incorrect information.  Here is a testimony from a faithful and sincere former nun that will bear witness to the kind of evil that exists in the RCC. This is in not designed to bash members of the RCC, but to warn them of the huge deception that prevails within.


"INTRODUCTION

First of all I always want to tell folks that I am not giving this testimony because I have any ill feeling in my heart toward the Roman Catholic people. I couldn't be a Christian if I still had bitterness in my heart.  God delivered me from all bitterness and strife one day and made Himself real to me in the power of the Holy Spirit.  And so, when I give this testimony, I'm giving it because after God saved me, He delivered me out of the convent and out of bondage to darkness, the Lord laid a burden upon my heart to give this testimony that others might know what plight the convents are.  And so as you listen carefully this afternoon, I trust that I'll not say one thing that will leave any feeling in your heart whatsoever that I don't carry a burden for the Roman Catholic people.  I don't like the things they do.  I don't agree with the things they teach, but I covet their souls for Jesus.  I'm interested in their souls.  I believe that when Jesus went to Calvary, He died that you and I might know Him.   And therefore they're just as precious as your soul and my soul.  So I'm interested.

DESIRE TO WORK FOR GOD

First of all, as we get into this testimony, having been born into Roman Catholicism, I didn't know anything else, not knowing the Word of God, because we didn't have the Bible in our home.  We had never heard anything about this wonderful plan of salvation.  And so, naturally, I grew up in that Roman Catholic home as a child knowing only the catechism, knowing only the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  And because I loved the Lord, and because I wanted to do something for Him--I wanted to give Him my life--I didn't know of any other way for a Roman Catholic girl to give her life to God other than by entering a convent.

After going to the confessional box there, naturally I'm under the influence of my Father confessor, the Roman Catholic priest--his influence over my life--one day I made up my mind, through his influence (and one of my teachers in the parochial school) that I wanted to be a little sister. At that time I thought of being a sister of the Open Order.  But as I went on into this up until the time I took my White Veil at sixteen and a half years of age, everything was beautiful.  I really didn't have any fear in my heart whatsoever.  Everything that was taught to me was similar to along the lines of what I had been taught in the Church before I had entered the convent.

And so one day, after making up my mind to enter a convent--I remember that particular day--two of the sisters came home with me from school.  They were my teachers.  And when we arrived at my father's home that afternoon, our Father confessor was in the home likewise.  I often say, when I was a little girl, children were seen and not heard.  You didn't talk when you was a child, at least you didn't in my family, in my home, unless you were spoken to.  And I remember  I listened to them carry on a conversation.  And then I had moved over close enough to my father to ask him if I could say something.  That was a bit out of the ordinary.  And he permitted me to talk.  And I said, "Dad, I want to go into a convent."  And I'll tell you that priest took it up quickly.  They had already been influencing me.

My father broke down and began to cry, not because he was sad, but he was very happy.  My mother came over and took me in her arms and she too wept tears---she was very happy.  Those were not tears of sadness [but] because their little girl was giving her life to the convent to pray for lost humanity.  And naturally, my family was very thrilled about it.  And I was too.

INTO THE CONVENT

But anyway, I didn't go for about a year after that.  And then the time come when I got myself ready and my mother prepared things for me.  They took me. They didn't have a place close enough to my father's and mother's home, so I think they took me around a thousand miles away from home where I entered a convent boarding school.  I lacked about three months being thirteen years of age--just a girl.  I look back on it now, and think, my, homesick.  I was so homesick!  Well, my mommy and daddy, they stayed three days with me and then they left.  I became so homesick. Naturally. I was just a baby away from home.  When I was a little girl, you know, I never spent a night away from my mother.  And I surely had never gone any place without my family.  And naturally there was close ties in my family, and I was very lonely and very homesick.  But I'll never forget [when] mother told me, "Good-bye."  And I knew they were traveling a long distance away from me.  And I had never realized in my heart I'll never see them again. Naturally I hadn't planned it like that because I'd planned to be a sister of the Open Order.

Listen carefully to this portion of the testimony then you'll understand just why I'm saying some of the things that I am saying.  Now oftentimes we say the priest selects his materials through the confessional box, because at seven years of age I went to confessional.  At seven years of age I would always, when I'd come into the church first, I'd sit over at the feet of a crucifix, rather the Virgin Mary and then over at the feet of the crucifix, and I'd ask the Virgin Mary to help me make a good confession, because I was a child and my heart was honest.  And I knew that the priest taught us to always make a good confession--keep nothing back--tell everything if I expected absolution from any sin that I might have committed. And so I would ask the Virgin Mary to help me make a good confession.  And I would ask Jesus to help me make a good confession.

And, you know, I'll assure you after I lived in the convent for a short period of time, I had to go on with my schooling I had just finished the eighth grade.  And they promised me to give me a high school education and some college education. But I ended up less college.   I got mostly just high school training.  And they gave that to me all right.  I took it under some terrible difficulties and strains and all that and it was rather difficult. But they gave it to me for which I appreciate it very very much.  But I'll assure you [afterwards] they put me through the crucial training that we must go through to become a little initiate [or viviciate?] entering a convent.  The training is very outstanding as far as a nun is concerned.  And you know what it's all about after you've been in there a little while.

So now I've entered the convent.  And for just a few minutes we want to tell you just a little bit how we lived--what we eat, how we sleep.  As I take you into the convent, and tell you those things, you'll understand a little bit more about my testimony.

THE WHITE VEIL

First, as I entered the convent, as just a small child and went on to school, I was being trained.  But the day came when I was about fourteen and a half when the Mother Superior began telling me about the White Veil.  And I didn't know too much about it.  By taking the White Veil, they told me that I would become the spouse or the Bride of Jesus Christ.  There would be a ceremony.   And I would be dressed in a wedding garment.

And on this particular morning, they told me at nine o'clock they would dress me up in a wedding garment.  Now, you're wondering where that came from, and how they got the wedding clothes for the little nun. Well, Mother Superior sits down and writes a letter to my father and tells him how much money she wants.  And then, whatever she asks, my father sends it.  And she, the little buying sister, goes out and buys the material and the wedding garments are made by the nuns of the cloister.  (I'm still Open Order now.)

And of course, whatever they asked him he would send out the money for the wedding garment.  We don't know these things at the very beginning of our testimony, but after you live in a convent for a little while, you learn to know they would ask my father for a hundred dollars and he'd send it.  They would use maybe a third of that for the wedding garment.  They would keep the rest of it, and my father would never know the difference. Neither did I until I'd lived in a convent for a period of time and I had to make some of the wedding clothes.  And then I knew the value of them, and what they cost.  And I knew of the money that came in because I was one of the older nuns.

The time came, of course, when I walked down that aisle and I was dressed in a wedding garment. And you know, in the convent, I used to walk the fourteen stations of the cross--the fourteen steps that Jesus carried the cross of Calvary--but after I made up my mind to take the White Veil, never again did I walk.  I wanted to be worthy.  I wanted to be holy enough to become the spouse, the bride, of Jesus Christ.  And so I would get down on my knees and would crawl the fourteen  stations--quite a distance.  But I crawled them every Friday morning.  I felt it would make me holy.  I felt it would draw me closer to God.  It would make me worthy of the step that I was going to take.  And that's what I wanted more than anything in the world.  I would like to impress on your hearts--every little girl that enters a convent that I know anything about, that child has the desire to live for God.  That child has a desire to give her heart and mind and soul to God.

Now many, many people make this remark and we hear it from various types of folks who say only bad women go into convents.   That isn't true.  There are movie stars who go into convents. And they've lived out in the world and no doubt they are sinners and all of that. But they go in when they're women--they know what they're doing. And they go in only because the Roman Catholic Church is going to receive not only thousands, but yea well up into the millions of dollars.  And they don't mind who they take in as they can get a lot of money out of that individual.

But the ordinary little girl, that goes in as a child--she's just a child--and she goes in there with her heart and mind and soul just as clean as any child could be.  I say that because sometimes we hear a lot of things that are really not true.

Now, after we become the spouse of Jesus Christ--I want you to listen carefully to this, and then you can follow me into the rest of the testimony--we are now looked upon as married women.   We are the spouse or the Bride of Jesus Christ.

BECOMING THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

Now the priest teaches every little girl that will take the White Veil they'll become the bride of Christ.  He teaches her to believe that her family will be saved.  It doesn't make any difference how many banks they rob, how many stores they rob.  It doesn't make any difference how they drink and smoke and carouse and live out in this sinful world and do all the things that sinners do.  It doesn't make a bit of difference.  Our family will be saved if we continue to live in the convent and give our lives to the convent and to the Church--we can rest assured that other members of our immediate family will be saved.

And you know that there are many little children that are influenced and enticed to go into convents because we realize that it will be the salvation for our families.  And sometimes, in a Roman Catholic family, the children grow up and leave the Roman Catholic Church and go out into the deepest of sin.  And so every little girl who enters into the convent is hoping by her sacrificing so much--home and mother and daddy--everything that a child loves--her family will be saved regardless of what sins they commit.  And of course we're children and our minds are immature and we don't know any better.  It's so easy to instill things like this into the hearts and minds of little children , and the priests are really very good at it.

And of course we looked upon our priest--our Father confessor--I looked upon him as God.  He's the only god I knew anything about.  To me he was infallible.  I didn't think he could sin.  I didn't think that he would lie. I didn't think that he ever made a mistake.  I looked upon him as the holiest of holies, because I didn't know a god, but I did know the Roman  Catholic priest.  And to me, I looked to him for  everything that I asked of God, so to speak, I believed the priest could give it to me.

And so the day comes with all of us. Now as we are going in, I want you to listen carefully--after taking the White Veil things are beautiful.   I'm sixteen and a half years of age.  Everyone's good to me. And I'm living in the convent and I haven't seen anything yet, because no little girl--we're not subject to a Roman Catholic Priest until we're twenty-one years of age.  And as we get in this next vow, then you'll understand, we don't know about this.  This is kept from the little sisters until we've taken our Black Veil and then it's too late.

I don't carry the keys to those double doors  and there's no way for me to come out.  The priest will tell all over the whole United States and other countries--that sisters and nuns, rather, can walk out of convents when they want to.  I spent twenty-two years there, I did everything that I could do to get out.  I've carried tablespoons with me into the dungeon and tried to dig down into that dirt because it's no floors in those cases. But I never yet found myself digging far enough to dig out of a convent with a tablespoon and that's about the only incident. Because when we're using the spade--and we do have to do hard, heavy work--when we use a spade we're being guarded--we're being watched by two older nuns and they're going to report on us--and I'll assure you you're not going to try and dig out with a spade.  You wouldn't get very far anyway, because they built and made those convents so little nuns can never escape.  That was their purpose in building them.  And they'll never get out unless God makes a way.  But I believe God's making a way for nuns and little girls to come out of the convent.

THE BLACK VEIL

Alright, now when the time comes, I think I was eighteen when the Mother began talking to me.  I planned to come out, see, after my white veil I wanted to be a little nursing assistant in the Roman Church.  But the Mother Superior--I suppose she was watching my life--I suppose she realized I had much endurance, I had a strong body.  And I believe the woman was watching me, because one day she asked me into her office.  And she began to tell me, "Charlotte, you have a strong body."  And she said, "I believe you have the possibilities of making a good nun.  Of course you will.  I believe you're the type that would be willing to give up home--give up mother and daddy--give up everything you love out in the world--and the world so to speak--and hide yourself away behind convent doors.  Because I believe you're the kind that would hide back there and be willing to sacrifice and live in crucial poverty that you might pray for lost humanity."  She said, "I believe you're the kind that would be willing to suffer."  Because we're taught to believe, as nuns, that as we suffer our loved ones and your loved ones that are already in a priest's purgatory will be delivered from purgatory sooner because of our suffering.

She knew I was willing to suffer.  I didn't murmur.  I didn't complain.  She knew all about it.  She's watching my life, and that's the reason she began to tell me about the Black Veil.  And then, of course, you know, I didn't know too much about a cloistered nun.  I didn't know their lives.  I didn't know how they live.  I didn't know what they done, but, you know, this woman proceeded to tell me.

Now we hear a lot of people try to tell me in the various places that we travel and go, I hear a lot of Roman Catholics try to tell me, "I've been in so many cloisters.  I know all about them."  But you know a Roman Catholic can lie to you.  And they don't have to go to confession and tell the priest about the lie that they've told, because they're lying to protect their faith.  They can tell any lie they want to to protect their faith and never go to the confessional box and tell the priest about it.

They can do more than that.  They can steal up to forty dollars.  And they don't have to tell the priest about it.  They don't have to say one word about it in the confessional box.  They are taught that.  Every Roman Catholic knows it.  And every Roman Catholic--you'd be horrified to know how many of them steal up to that amount.  And many of them lie.  We've dealt with them.  I've dealt with hundreds and hundreds of them.  I see a good many of them fall in the altar and cry out to God to save them.  And you know before they get saved, they look into my face and hold my hand and lie to me.  But after God gets a hold of their heart, then they want to make right what they told me because they realize they've lied about it.  But as long as they're Roman Catholic, they're permitted to lie.  And it's the saddest thing. You can't expect them to know God, because God does not condone sin.

I don't care who you are.  I don't believe God condones sin.  And I don't believe He's going to condone it in the Roman Catholic people, even though they're being misled and they're being blinded and led into ways that are going to lead them into a devil's hell. I believe that with all of my heart, because I've lived in a convent.  I know something about how these people live and what they do.

Now the day comes.  She told me, "Charlotte, you have to be willing to spill your blood.  Jesus shed His upon Calvary."  She said, "You have to be willing to do penance.  Heavy penance,"  She said, "You'll have to be willing to live in crucial poverty." Now already I'm living in the pit of poverty, but I thought that was going to make me holier, and draw me closer to God, and would make me a better nun. And so I'm willing to live in that poverty.

LAYING IN A CASKET

And then on this particular morning, she told me what I would be wearing. She said, "You'll spend nine hours in a casket."  And she explained a number of things to me.  That's the most I knew about it.  And I didn't find that out until I had taken my White Veil.

And so, on this particular morning, I'm twenty-one years of age.  But sixty days previous to my being twenty-one years of age, I'm going to sign some papers that they place in front of me.  And those papers are this--I'm going to sign away every bit of inheritance that I might have received from my family after they're dead.  Of course I signed that over to the Roman Catholic Church.  And oftentimes I say the Roman Catholic priests are enticing girls--not only their background, not only their strong bodies, their strong minds and strong wills--but he's enticing girls where mothers and fathers have much property.  And they are constantly fishing for the material things of this life.  Why?  Because when that child enters the convent they're going to get a portion of her money--of her father's money.

And I often say even salvation in the Roman Catholic Church is going to cost you plenty of money.  More than you know anything about.  And so they don't mind commercializing off of that child and the inheritance that would have come to her."

The above is simply a fraction of the testimony,

I own a catechism, and I check, most of what u had are not in the catechism, and for the ones that are in the catechim those beliefs u don't hold to because you don't know much about your own faith. What's in the catechim isn't false, it's actually truth because it is from the Bible, the problem is you don't understand the Bible and when parts of it are shown to you, you refuse to interpret it and you simply dodge the questions you ask.

But you don't own the older catechisms in which most of the teachings and dogmas are found.

Most of you quote Bible passages to counter the Bible passages we post for you, you make it seem as if the Bible is contradictory, when it isn't.

Its funny how your actions betray you.  Isn't it funny how Catholic priests don't tell their members its wrong to smoke and drink, and its fine to live anyhow as long as you confess and say a few hail Mary's, all is well.  Penance is just around the corner you see, so don't worry.

The problem is in the interpretation of the Bible. I happen to choose the interpretation that has been there since the apostles, you choose your own personal interpretation. If you guys will start applying logic and start being honest with yourselves and your interpretation, you will see that you believe in what we believe in.

You keep repeating the same old stuff that applies to the RCC. It is they who continue to nullify God's words with their pagan traditions.  The deception is so deeply rooted that no one is qualified to see the obvious variation from truth. Revelation rightly speaks of spiritual drunkenness on the part of those who see the many wrongs being committed, and still continue to defend it.

When did catholic doctrine become newsmagazines? Where in the catechism or books written by Catholics does it say that we should go and kill those protestants.

I dare say not just in your catechisms, but here is just a part of the Jesuit oath, "I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus, "

Ever heard of Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I, ask the Irish and the Scots why they were afraid of the Brits. Ask the KKK who they killed before they turned towards black people.

Wise old king if you ask me who was prepared to defend his people against all evil. Besides, there is a vast difference between defending against inquisitions, than say killing people based on their right to choose the bible. Protestant monarchs, God bless their souls, were insightful enough to see what the RCC was up to.

And yes it continued for hundreds of years, and is still going on right now, especially in the South of the U.S,  I know this because I live in Florida, and I have lost friendships for converting to the Catholic faiths.

When last have you heard on the news that Catholic priests were being killed in vast numbers? There can be no comparison to the vast amount of murders that were waged agaiinst bible-believing Christians. The latest round of sexual scandals is all we have heard of, and nothing more. Name a period as far back as you can recall. If anything its both protestants and Catholics that are killed alike in those regions of political instability. Hardly do we hear that priests are killed because of their faith.

They have labeled me devil, and all sorts of things. Did you know that John F. Kennedy did for the Catholics what Obama has done for blacks? That's right, Catholics everyday are discriminated against, and while majority of us are not being killed right now because of the stricter laws and the CSI unit, we are still being persecuted by you all. This board is evidence of the hatred towards us. Do a research on this board and tell me if you will find a Catholic thread started to bash Protestants. But I can assure you, you will find many threads bashing Catholics.

Welcome to the club. Being disagreed with in strong terms doesn't qualify you as the truth bearer. The Witnesses, and others have been discriminated against, but does that make them out to be bearers of God's oracles?

If what you were refering to from the Catholics is the Crusades, that in itself isn't a calling from the Church to kill and maim people. The first crusade was called by the Pope to defend Christians from muslims, and that's the reason why we are all not screaming "allahu akbar" right now and being subject to sharia law, so be grateful.

Its quite the opposite! The Moslems prevented the expansion of the inquisitions. Revelation describes them as the locusts from the pit. The Arabs then, as against the extreme forms of Islam today became God's tool in sparing the untold anhilation that would have befallen bible-believing Christians.

The crusades was hijacked by greedy politicians who decided to use the name of the Church to gain riches and such, the Pope called for them to stop and decreed that any of them who continued with that will be excommunicated. So in reality they didn't belong to the Catholic church.

History says otherwise Lady. Pope John Paul apologized did he not? History makes it abundantly clear that the popes initiated the inquisitions to quell the growing reformation. You're not talking to the average poster lady. Please don't insult our intelligence. While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.

Why did the Pope apologise, because we are a humble people, and because you guys have so much hatred in your heart that you refuse to listen to reason, we apologised.

Hahahahha, really now! I will give you an "A" for effort.  

But if we go by your reasoning and say that because some church members (excommunicated) performed such atrocious acts, then the whole Church must be evil, then all white people must be evil because of the atrocious acts by their ancestors.

What utter nonsense! Who would excummunicated Catholics commit their wicked acts on may I ask?

Be careful not to let hatred cloud your judgment.

Rest assured we are doing it out of love for Catholic members.

But since you want to know what acts have been committed against the church, then take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

You can definitely use the time you spend finding hateful things about the church, to search for the atrocious acts done against it.

Reporting the murders of innocent people for having expressed their desire to read the bible is just a fraction of the many evils committed by the RC leadership. The point is were it not for the sinister traditions of the RCC in the first place, none of these things would be up for discussion now.

Bible-believing Christians have a God-given duty to expose the RCC evils for what they are, and we are doing it with the pen and not with the sword.

@ Dominobaby

There sure is something such as speaking in tongues. Read ur bible WELLA!!! It is an evidence that u've received d Holy Ghost!!!

Evidence you say?

Its all hypnotism if you ask me. Show me from scriptures where one of the disciples, or apostles carried on in this manner in any worship session, and you'd have won me over.

One of the most misunderstood teachings is that of the gift of tongues.

@ Chukwudee44

You agree that the child in question is Jesus.But you do not agree that the Mother is Mary,so let me ask you this question; how many people gave birth to Jesus?

The issue is not whether how many persons have given birth to Jesus. The issue is whether or not the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. Any dilligent, and honest reader of the chapter would pay close attention to what was said.

Revelation 12:1 says "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars"

So because the woman appears to be in heaven it automatically makes her Mary? How then would you interpret this verse that says, "3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads."

Should we now assume that John saw a literal dragon in heaven, or was John using symbolic language? Let us take it a bit further. Let us look at this verse, " 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

Notice the sequence of events as described by John? There is no evidence that the heaven of which John speaks is where God dwells, because Paul speaks of three heavens, assuming that the third heaven of which he spoke assumes the existence of a first, and a second. The point I am making is that both entities were seen in heaven, which simply means that what John saw were above the earth, but not necessarily in the heaven of heavens.

Now look at verse 6, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."

Now if we are following a sequence of events, then logically the woman didn't really go to heaven after all. For 1260 years she withstood the threats and attacks of the dragon (which represents Satan primarily, and pagan Rome which he used, secondarily) according to verses, "13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."

Notice how John re-introduces the predicted conflict between the woman and the serpent in Genesis 3:15 in Revelation 12.? In a symbolic sense the woman represents the church, through which Christ the Messiah would eventually come. In a literal sense it took a single woman Mary, being a part of the church herself to have become the chosen vessel, but in a much broader sense, Jesus Christ came through a chosen people who at that time was called the Jews.

Note how verses 15, and 16 show without a doubt the final place where the woman would be, "15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth."

For 1260 literal years God's true believers went persecuted while the RCC thrived. John used used the "earth" as a symbol to represent the reality, that God's people thrived in nature. The munitions of rocks cushioned some of the people of God, and were used as hiding spots from the tyranny of the inquisitions. Water in prophecy represents people, and hence the flood in this case would represent those agents of Satan who sought the life of God's true believers.

you are confused .the queen of heaven mentioned in the book of jeremiah has got nothing ton do with Mary or the RCC.

So why is Mary called queen of heaven by your own leaders?

The blesssed Virgin Mary is not WORSHIPPED rather she is VENERATED,besides she is not the only one being venerated .Mary is being honoured as the ark that brought the new covenant,this honour given to her is no differant from the honour given to the ark of the old testament mentioned in the scriptures.Remember how David danced half naked just to receive the ark.

So why must the RCC go directly against God's law which says, "4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them, "

The RCC has removed the 2nd commandment, which forbids the making of graven images, and have divided the 10th in 2 so as to account for 10.

If I worship someone and deny worshipping her in public would that be true woprship?
Mary is not only venerated in the RCC,she is also venerated in the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox churches.

And the major differences between these organizations are very thin, and not enough to warrant any serious problems. So no big deal if they at least have this in common.

@ Carlosein

thanks for your humility and acceptance. the bible is indeed the only written source of truth but not the only source of truth!!!

The truth of which I speak frees all men from the bondage of sin. The only source of salvivic truth I am aware of is that which comes from the word of God, and from Jesus Christ Himself who is the embodiment of absolute truth.

Hence anything that seeks to nullify the scriptures cannot be termed truth. Jesus said, "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"

While I agree that there are other sources of truth it must be understood that such sources must have their roots in the bible. It cannot be that some are championing the cause of the canon, and making a boast of having established it, while at the same time are ignoring its divine instructions. If any tradition, be it Catholic, or otherwise seeks to lessen the impact of God's instructions, then away with such. The written instructions must take precedence over worship formats.

Ever wondered why God instructed Samuel the prophet to tell king Saul that any worship without obedience is unacceptable? The act of worship itself does not guarantee that God will accept such. The element of sacrifice, or worship isn't enough. Acts of worship aught to be based on following exactly what God instructs. Samuel told the king "that to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken the fat of rams, "True love for God is reflected in being obedient to His will. Jesus once said, "If you love me keep my commandments"

The purpose of this thread, which is being derailed by those who seek to hide from the truth, is to show the stark difference between what men teach as doctrines, versus the plain teachings of scriptures.

I did HIV test recently and the result came out to be positive. It was sent to Yaba for a confirmatory test but the result remained the same. When I was told, the whole world stopped and I could only hear my heart beat and the beats of the drums of death. I couldn't believe it. I'm less than 27, vibrant and handsome and has the most beautiful girl as fiancee. The only thing that makes me happy is the fact that both of us have never had sex, this calmed me a little but was still confused about what to do.

The only viable option that came my way was GOD! Believe it or not, He can do all things. You may be quick to condemn me by asking "is it now u know God exists?" I don't blame u,because u are right. I've not been totally clean and honest to God and my fiancee but I've chosen to renew my relationship wit Him. Its not been easy u know, but I have the faith that He will heal me.

A word of advice to all: don't play with your life! Abstainence is the best. Dont think u are safe by doing it just once or with just one person, that may just be the one that will get u "hooked and cooked" At this time I need your support and prayers to win this battle. I hope to share my healing with this forum when God does the miracle. Thanks.

I am really sorry to hear about your case. I am convinced the Christians on Nairaland will be praying for you. Don't give up on your dreams. Being positive doesn't mean that all hope is lost. In time you will see my point.

Remember God is love, and He has a plan for you despite your transient set back.

The sooner you start getting treatment the better.

@ Carlosein

chukwudi, that has been the whole point all along. at the mention of mary, their keyboards become constipated and spew gibberish.

And the only thing you have as evidence is what the pope says?

Poor Mary! She must be turning in her grave.

how u can play judge, jury and executioner here beats me. first, you put up an argument and claim you want to really find the truth. then yet you limit the resources used in arriving at the real truth (old trick sir!).

I have made no such claim. If quoting the bible as the only written source of truth makes me all that and more then so be it.

if you are really interested in the truth, then consider other sources of truth or at least acknowledge that you haven't done so. that way we know you are serious.

John quotes Jesus as saying, "I am the truth, the way, and the life, "

you ask for proof, we say it is our sacred tradition, u say tufiakwa! but at least we have one!.
i now ask you: show us proof that the most blessed virgin was not assumed into heaven. kindly oblige us.

Jesus rejected man's traditions, and especially those that militated against God's divine instructions. Any tradition that seeks to nullify God's revealed will, and commands, must be utterly rejected. The command speaks against making graven images, yet your traditions do the very opposite.

n.b: we don't mind any sources of truth you use, so feel free to explore

Don't worry more is coming,

@ Lady

I am also yet to find a 'bible-believing" Christian who can explain the killing and maim of millions of Catholic Christians and still be seen as the true church.

beats me.

Your hypocrisy stinks.

Millions of Catholics? When was that may I ask? Were they killed for believing the bible instead of protestant teachings, or were they killed for meddling in politics?

In either case find the source where Catholics were searched out and killed for period of hundreds of years.

@ Lady

Exactly and that's why we tell you to go to Catholic websites to get the actual documents. Majority of the documents that bobyaf presented are no where to be found in Catholicism, why?

So what do you call catechisms if not a compilation of catholic doctrines?

I know for a fact that people have made up documents and passed them off as Catholic documents and posted them on websites and people like you go there and believe that those are Catholic documents when in fact they aren't.

Would you consider the very pope's confession "made up documents"? When reports are revealed about the wanton murders and maiming of Christians in the millions over hundreds of years, would you consider those reports as "made up documents"?

And the point we are stressing is that the real Catholic documents and beliefs are rooted in scripture. If you guys will be truthful and logical and approaching the issue you will see so as well. I saw so and so have millions of protestant converts to Catholicism. I converted to Catholicism when I decided to stop going through hateful websites and went straight to the source. I went to a Catholic Church.
And dear you do need someone to explain it for you, sometimes our eyes can be misleading especially when we expect to see something. When you go looking for something you may find it even when it isn't there.

Stop deluding yourself!

Instead of approaching this issue with us with an already made up mind, how about you actually reason with us and if our reasoning doesn't make sense to you then you can go on your way.

I will stress a point to you, that you do believe in what Catholics believe you just don't know it. If you wish for me to show you then I don't have a problem with that, as far as you promise to respect me as I promise to respect you.

It is not by force to be Catholic, and we don't go looking for trouble but be assured that we will defend the truth as we have done from the founding of the Church by Christ.

History refutes everything you have said above.

I am never the least surprised that Catholics are never able to use the bible to defend their faith, because they simply cannot. After having paganized pure Christendom, as was predicted by the bible itself, are we now surprised to see the level of responses?

@ Xavier3

Grin bobbyaf if you were God the Son (Jesus) would you let your own mother die? i guess not, so in the same way Mary was assumed into heaven and besides do you know that the entire text of the bible was gathered by the catholics and they were the ones who chose out of the many inspirational scriptures which one was to be part of the bible and the ones that were not befitting to be read were cast aside due to certain reasons. it took so many years of prayers and precautionary procedures before the protestant version of the bible as it is now to come into being.
this argument can go on forever but the fact is that the catholics believe in bible and tradition (not traditional worship or ethics, but traditional examples that were displayed by Jesus himself)

The bible says "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and that included Mary. Try as you may there is no scriptural evidence to prove she was taken up to heaven.

I am yet to find a Catholic who can explain how the church of the living God can kill and maim millions of bible-believing Christians and still be seen as the true church.

Beats me.

@ Ttalks

Bobbyaf,

Don't you remember that they have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication? Wink Grin
They've become numb to the reality of truth due to their drunken state.
It's only those who are truly God's and are ordained unto salvation that will awake from their drunken stupor and face the reality of truth. Wink

Exactly! The bible says that the god of this world has blinded them. It also says that God will send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie instead of the truth.

@ Omenuka

@Bobbyaf,

Sorry for not getting back sooner, lets go. . . .Oh, Lady thanks for the shout out.

That's the thing. . . .that's why I'm Catholic and you're not. I don't see any glaring variation between Catholic teaching and the Holy Scriptures. If I did I wouldn't be Catholic, now would I. The Catholic Church has apostolic succession, so if Paul were alive today and were to point to the Church founded by Jesus he would point towards the Catholic Church.

John was exactly right. You have been drunken with the harlot's wine. Only God can help you now.

* "Most Divine of all Heads."
* "Holy Father of Fathers."
* "Pontiff Supreme Over Prelates."
* "Overseer of the Christian Religion."
* "Pastor of Pastors."
* "Christ by Unction."
* "Abraham by Patriachate."
* "Melchisedec in Order."
* "Moses in Authority."
* "Samuel in the Judicial Office."
* "High Priest, Supreme Bishop."
* "Heir to the Apostles; Peter in Power."
* "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven."
* "Pontiff Appointed with Plenitude of Power."
* "Vicar of Christ."
* "Vicar of the Son of God."
* "Sovereign Priest."
* "Head of all the Holy Churches."
* "Chief of the Universal Church."
* "Bishop of Bishops."
* "Ruler of the House of the Lord."
* "Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers."
* "Chief Pastor and Teacher."
* "Physician of Souls."
* "Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."
* "Infallible Pope."
* "Head of All the Holy Priests of God"
* "Chief bridge maker"

I asked where did the list come from and you provided no link or source. So, I will assume the list was made up by some anti-catholic of sorts.

I thought you said you were familiar with both secular and church history. Tell you what ask of your priests the next time you attend mass, and let them sit you down and give you the whole drama. Just to let you in on a little secret the list was not made up.

I believe the teachings of the Catholic Church are true and orthodox. How has the Catholic Church violated the heavenly priesthood ministry of Jesus Christ. The priesthood was instituted by Jesus Christ by giving his disciples the authority to preach and lead in His name (Matt. 10:1,40;16:19; 18:18; Luke 9:1; 10:19; etc.).

None of those texts have given anyone the authority to forgive sins, or to have persons come before a priest to make confessions. Jesus Christ died to provide for the forgiveness of sins. Why would John say that if any man sins he has an advocate with the Father, the man Christ Jesus, if such an authority was given to the priests in the first place? Why is Jesus Christ High Priest in heaven making intercessions for our sins if He had already given sin-infested priests who themselves need cleansing such authority? When Jesus hung on the cross those who were in Jerusalem witnessed what the earthquake did to the Jewish temple. Those wicked priests saw the veil of the temple torn from top to bottom signifying that that system was now null and void.

Priests have what is called apostolic authority by way of apostolic succession which is exemplified in Acts 1:15-26. The first thing Peter does in that passage, after Jesus ascends into heaven, is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. He is given the authority to preach and lead, by way of the apostles. Apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (Acts. 6:6, ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown. By this way do we know that the bishops are the successors of the apostles.

Really now! Until they continue with the apostolic scriptural teachings they are none of His. Its all in your head.

As far as Mary being given the title 'queen of heaven', what Catholics mean by that is that she is the Queen Mother or "Gebirah"(1 Kings 2:18). In the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King's (in our case Jesus Christ) followers.

So what! That has nothing to do with a dead woman whose bones have rotted long time ago.

Since we are brothers (and sisters) of Christ, she (the Blessed Virgin) is our mother by way of Chist as well (John 19:26). We believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary intercedes on our behalf to her Son, Jesus Christ. Because she was most pure, we believe that her intercessory prayers (and those of other righteous people/saints alive and/or with Christ) have powerful effects (James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29). God hears the prayers of the righteous and upright.

Find the evidence that she never died and get back to me. All you have to go by is what the Catholics teach. Why would any of the apostles have ignored such an important event as that, seeing the the significance it would have played in our time? The Marian doctrine was made up hundreds of years after the apostles all died.

My friend, I can use the same scripture passage to describe you and your church. Paul may have said there will be a falling away, but this was not in regards to the Church because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

You're perfectly right, but the difference lies in what church Paul was addressing. Remove your blinders and check history once again as to who killed and maimed millions of Christians who refused RC traditions and who preferred reading the bible. Jesus knew exactly what His church stood for. Everything you do as an organization is designed to be the very opposite of what scripture teaches. I am more than able to list a host of variations if you care,

Like you, the Church preaches that many people will not accept God’s free gift of salvation. But, acknowledging that not everyone will be saved is not the same thing as saying the Church will be overcome by the evil one because if that were the case then Jesus' promise in Matt 16:18 would have all been for not, for he said:

Quote
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

We believe this Church is the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately there has been a gross misunderstanding of that passage above. Christ did not say that Peter was the rock. He said that he was a pebble, or small stone. The rock that Jesus referred to was what the Father prompted Peter to have said about Christ being the Son of the Living God. In that sentence lies the pure essence of salvation, that if we believe that Jesus was sent by God, and accept His sacrifice, then we shall be saved. Remember what Peter said to the crowd at Pentecost before they were baptized? He said "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, "

How could Peter have been that ROCK when soon after having said such a powerful statement that he would have turned to Christ to discourage Him from Calvary? Do you recall what Jesus said to Peter, "get thee hence Satan, " How could Peter be that ROCK when he denied His Lord at a time When he was needed? Was he the rock right there and then when Christ supposedly said that he was?

Oh, earlier you said that the 1st century bishops and priests of the Catholic Church aposticized. Now you are claiming that St. Ignatius (a first century bishop) was a good soldier of Christ. I’m assuming that this affirmation of yours stating that Ignatius was a “soldier of Christ” means that you believe he did not aposticize as you stated earler. Ok, well let me post some of Ignatius' writings in regards to what he believed and thought about the church at Rome (headed by the bishop of Rome aka the Pope).

"From IGNATIUS, whose other name is Theophorus: To her who has found mercy in the greatness of the All Highest Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son, to the church beloved and enlightened in her love to our God Jesus Christ by the will of Him who wills all things; to the church holding chief place in the territories of the district of ROME--worthy of God, worthy of honour, blessing, praise, and success; worthy too in holiness, foremost in love, observing the law of Christ, and bearing the Father's name."

It was never your way to grudge anyone his success. You have been a SOURCE OF INSTRUCTION to others; all I want is for the principles which you expound by your teaching to hold good now

"However, I am not issuing orders to you, as though I were a Peter or a Paul. They were Apostles and I am a condemned criminal."

"Letter to the Romans." 107 AD

As you can see from the above quotes, St. Ignatius expressed high respect, honor, veneration, and deference towards the church at Rome. In the quote St. Ignatius alludes to the unique authority of the church at Rome and if he were alive today even he would know where the Church of Christ is; that is the Catholic Church.

I am certain that Ignatius was very much aware of the apostasy Paul spoke of. He having used the word church in his document doesn't necessarily mean he was addressing the Catholic church. There will always be two churches. One will be genuine, and one will be counterfeit.

Source please. . . .

Each time you post something in this thread how can you be sure its genuine? We all have our sources don't we?

I just posted the listing of Popes for that time period and showed you that Vigilius was the Pope in 539 AD and there was no break in the chain of succession. Where are you getting your information from? Are you saying that John was bishop in 539 and soon after there was no Pope. Or, are you saying before John became Pope there were no Popes. What time period did we not have a pope?

So why was there a scuffle over leadership? Why would Justinian have to choose one bishop over the other if as you say there has never been a break? Its obvious that several bishops had their eyes on the prize,

This copying and paste thing you are doing is not answering any of my questions. Why do you keep saying Catholic supremacy? The Roman Empire had a Roman Emperor (Not the Pope). The Roman Emperor was the one who had the power. Like I've been saying all along, the Pope (bishop of Rome) was/is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church.

That is exactly the point. The bishop wanted what the Caesars had, and whoever Justinian favored, being the last emperor would have gotten total supremacy for the church only after the three Arian kingdoms were completely removed from the map. History shows that after AD476 Rome started losing its power, despite Justinian's valiant attempt to restore the west . After Justinian there wasn't another emperor according to most historians. Revelation 13 says that the dragon, pagan Rome passed on its seat and authority to the beast the RCC.

And since you are bringing up the heresy of Arianism, do you know what Arianism is? Are you saying that Arianism is orthodox belief? Do you believe in Arianism? I would have you know that Arianism is the belief that Jesus and ‘God the Father’ are NOT one. Basically it was declared a heretical belief by the Church well before AD 539. See below.

I do not believe in Arianism, but there is something being taught by the RCC that is even worse, and that is Marianism.

Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250––336), a Christian priest, who was first ruled a heretic at the First Council of Nicea, later exonerated and then pronounced a heretic again after his death. Arius lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt in the early 4th century. The most controversial of his teachings dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father and that there had been a time before he existed. This teaching of Arius conflicted with other christological positions held by Church theologians (and subsequently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches).

I studied systematic theology, and I am aware of the various theories about God.

The above quote is not true. . . .the author of the quote is assuming that if the Pope is not in Rome or if he dies then the Church dies with him. Its like saying, since Peter was the leader of the apostles, when he died the Church died with him.

Try as you may you cannot change history. The fact is the church's property and right to be the ruling church ceased to exist, if but only for awhile according to the prophecy.

Peter was captured by the Romans and crucified upside down. According to you, since he was forcefully taken into custody and was crucified upside down the Church ended with him.

We are not talking about Peter here. There is no comparison. Peter wasn't involved with politics and curruption as the church was. It took a secular monarch like Napolean to have seen right through the hypocracy of the RCC.

Or again, since Jesus is our God, when he died the Church died with him. For the record, after Pope Pius VI, there was Pope Pius VII. There have been many occurrences in the history of the Church where the Pope was subjected to maltreatment and forcefully taken into custody. Just because the Pope is imprisoned or kidnapped does mean that there is not Catholic Church. Let me post the list of Popes again, and it shows that in 1798 and in subsequent years there was a Pope.

You're missing the point, which is the church lost its power. It was not free to do as it did in violating the people's freedom. All its ill-gotten properties were taken away. It had nothing to scheme with. It was flat broke. No money no power, since that was all the leadership depended on.

By the way why was there 3 popes fighting for power? Is that what Christ commissioned the church to do?

Daniel 7:25 is referring to the persecution of Antiochus IV and his attempt to coerce the Jews into giving up their religion and customs and adopt Hellenistic ways.

Any smart grammar student would readily see the folly of your reasoning. Antiochus IV doesn't fit in that time prophecy which pointed to a power that would rise up after pagan Rome fell. I have told you before that if you line up the image in chapter 2, with the beast in chapter 7, you'd get a parallel. Since the iron naturally represents Rome, then its logical and truthful to think that the 4th beast in chapter 7 would represent Rome. After Rome's demise came up 10 smaller kingdoms of which 3 were destroyed by the little horm power using the Roman army to do its dirty work.

Remember what Daniel said would happen in the feet and toes of the image that were mixed with iron and clay? The 10 toes were a mixture of Iron and clay, meaning that some of the 10 kingdoms would have been stronger than some. Daniel predicted too that there would have been an attempt to unite the kingdoms, but the prophet was shown that that would have been impossible since iron and clay could not mix. Several attempts were made by kings and queens to re-form as it were a holy Roman empire. Through inter-marriage between royalties, sons and daughters of kings and queens were placed all around Europe to secure unity, but each one led to internal conflicts and murders.

What you're guilty of is private interpretation of prophecy. You cannot choose randomly other historical figures to try and throw off the truth of God's words. You must put all the pieces together so as to derive at the truth.

And it actually says “a time, two times a time, and half a time” (or a year, two years, and a half-year). Basically, it says 3 ½ years or 1260 days and not 1260 years (as Bobbyaf and co are claiming). We Catholics have the Old Testement Book of Maccabees and in the book it describes the actions of Antiochus IV towards the Jews and lines up with to Daniels prophecy.

Unfortunately it doesn't fit.

So, since this was the first time of me hearing about this 1260 year nonsense being pushed by Bobbyaf, I decided to google it and this is what I found:

I am glad you did because now you know how its done.


Quote

Criticism of Seventh-day Adventist usage
The day-year principle is used by descendants of the Adventist movement, as well as by Christadelphians (who developed independently of the Adventist movement) and a few others; however it has very few supporters within mainstream evangelical Christianity and institutional Christian churches such as the Anglicans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. Most theologians from the mainstream Christian denominations do not regard the principle as valid.

Other sources say otherwise.

Some within the Seventh-day Adventist Church question the validity of the day-year principle. For example, the progressive theologian Desmond Ford challenges the use of the day-year principle in his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine. A wise man changes his mind sometimes, but a fool never. To change your mind is the best evidence you have one. The last redoubt holding out for me was the year-day principle (on which I had written a defense in 1972 for the Southern Publishing Association Daniel volume which was published in 1978). This collapsed when I handled hundreds of books of commentary on Revelation in the Library of Congress stacks and found that the respective authors had in many cases suggested dates that seemed appropriate for their own time but ridiculous later. It became clear that we, as Adventists, had done the same as our predecessors. So when I gave the Forum meeting at Pacific Union College all the problems I had been fighting tumbled out, my rearguard action was over.
– Desmond Ford[8]

If you were prepared to find out that this principle of prophetic understanding started way back before there was even 19th century churches. What one man expresses and is placed in a search engine doesn't mean anything. The weight of history is what counts. Below is proof that the principle of a day for a year in bible prophecy goes beyond what you think.

The day/year principle is an old principle already recognized by the Jews, even before the time of Christ.
However it was Abbot Joachim, of Floris, who in 1190, applied the day/year principle to the 1260 days.
His “disciple”, the scientist, physician, Villanova, agreed with Joachim and applied the year-day principle to the 2300 days as well. (Froom 1:751-752)

Francois du Jon (c.1545-1602), Huguenot leader, lawyer, theologian, preacher, gives his reason for the year-day principle:
"Daies is commonly taken as yeares, that God in this sort might shew the time to be short, and that the space of time is definitely set downe by Him in His counsaile. The daies must be reckoned for so many yeares, after the example of the Prophets Ezechiel and Daniel." (Francois du Ion, The Apocalyps, 1596 p. 124, cited by Froom 2:624.)

Georg Nigrinus (1530-1602), Evangelical theologian and teacher, and prolific exegete, chiefly on prophecy. In an argument dealing with the Jesuit arguments over the three and a half year (1260 days) Nigrinus cited Tertullians recognition of the fact that pagan Rome in his day was holding back the coming of Antichrist, Nigrinus discusses Antichrist’s allotted time period, and cites the verdict of the Bible:
"This Jesuit further contends that the papacy cannot be antichrist because the papacy has lasted for centuries, but that the antichrist is supposed to reign only 3 ½ years….But no one doubts today that Daniel spoke of year-days, not literal days….The prophetic time-periods of forty-two months, 1260 days, 1,2,½ times are prophetic, and according to Ezekiel 4, a day must be taken for a year. (Nigrinus, "Antichrists Grundtliche Offenbarung" fils 28v,29r cited in Froom 2:328)

John Napier (1550-1617), distinguished Scottish mathematician, celebrated inventor of logarithms, introducer of the present use of the decimal point, inventor of a mechanical device for the performance of multiplication, division, and extraction of square and cube roots, says this about the year-day principle: "In propheticall dates of daies, weekes, monethes, and yeares, everie common propheticall day is taken for a yeare." (Froom 2:457.)

In recent years, few others besides Adventists have attempted to substantiate the interpretation that the 1260 days represent 1260 years spanning AD 538 and 1798 (the Christadelphians are an exception). The majority of historians do not consider this a period of papal supremacy, and it is disputed whether the events which Adventists allege took place in AD 538 did in fact occur in that year. Critics of the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation point out that the word "day" does not appear in the Hebrew of Daniel 8:14; instead the phrase "evenings and mornings" is used, indicating that literal days, not symbolic ones, are in view.

However way you choose to see it the expression "evenings and mornings" still represent a day, just as Genesis says it is. In prophecy however God allows a day to symbolically represent a year, or how else would we be able to calculate time prophecy? Let me supply you an example to back up the day-year principle as used in scripture.

In Daniel 8 he receives a vision concerning the cleansing of the sanctuary which according to the prediction would have started at the end of 2300 days. If you were to count from the time Daniel was told by the angel in chapter 9 as to when the period would have started, which was BC457, then counting literally 2300 days after that starting period would not even see the reconstruction of the temple walls much less there being a sanctuary to be cleansed.

If you divide 2300 literal days by 360 days to deetrmine how many years we are talking about it would amount to less than 7 years. It took the Jews 49 years to have re-constructed the temple walls.

Think about it carefully. Was Daniel even referring to the earthly temple in the first place, and its cleansing? Certainly not, and if one takes the time to study Daniel 7 through 9 one will discover that God had spoken about a judgment in heaven, and for most of you who can't seem to put it together, its talking about the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary above, when Jesus Christ will blot out the sins from the books in heaven, while at the same time judge that little horn that persecuted His people, and blasphemed His temple and name. There are several sections in the bible that talk about the books being opened, and the thrones cast down. Everything ties in.

It is pointed out that Adventists do not apply the day-year principle consistently. That is, there are other contexts, besides the 1260 and 2300 day prophecies, where the principle is not applied and references to time are taken literally. The decision when to use the principle thus appears arbitrary.

That cannot be true because there is only one way to use the principle.

Another criticism is that the Adventist application of the day-year principle to prophetic periods makes it impossible for Christ to have returned prior to the year 1798, when in fact the New Testament church believed themselves to be living in the "last days" (Hebrews 1:2) and expected the second coming of Christ to occur at any moment (Revelation 22:20). Christ himself is noted to have suggested to his followers that his coming could be within their lifetimes (Mark 13:30-37).

It still wouldn't matter since what Christians imagined wouldn't necessarily affect the principle, and its application. Furthermore, the principle can only apply to prophecies that will only take place before the 2nd coming of Jesus.

temple(abomination of desolation) and suspended the temple offerings from 167-164 BC

Look, I don’t know who all influenced Justinian (I’m sure many people did) to re-claim the western part of his empire that was overrun with Germanic tribes (what kind of question is that). Oh, and please name these 10 kingdoms that were defeated by Justinian.

Only after you name the present day remnants of people who survived the the 3 Arian kingdoms. Not only that since you believe that these kingdoms were not completely then where are they today. I can account for the other 7.

What!? The reason why Germans speak Geman and have there own country, French speak French and have there own country, Spaniards speak Spanish and have there own country, etc., is because of the influence of these same Germanic tribes. The cultures and languages of Europe are partly attributable to the Germanic tribes. Therefore, there is a trace of there culture and kingdom.

It doesn't change the reality that there started out 10 kingdoms, and that we can still account for 7 of the 10, despite their modern languages having their roots in German. If you can find on any map today a place where 3 kingdoms once occupied, and that a modern nation has sprung up from them, then fine. Go ahead please,

Oya, post the comparison please. . . .

I explained all that already.

@ chukwudi44

@ bobbybaff
you make me laugh with your wrong intepretation of prophet's Daniel's prophecy.The antichrist is going to reign for 1260 days(3.1/2 years or 42 months) not 1260  years.please go and read your Bible again.check Dan 7:25.9:27,Rev 11:12,12:6,12:14,13:5

This prophecy refers to the end of the world. At the end of this 1260 days Jesus is supposed to appear to gather the saints and condemn the evil ones.The RCC did not start in AD 538  nor did it end in 1798.Am sorry for you you are deluded

Do us all a huge favour, make sure you read through Daniel 2, 7, and Revelation 12, 13, 17 then we can have an intelligent discussion. [quote][/quote]

If those artists were to live by their work they'd certainly starve,

@ pastor AIO

ps. I'm not agreeing with him, I'm just saying that he deserves proper consideration.

What part do you not agree with?

@ Lady

oh so you think the co-redemptrix status of Mary is wrong abi? No wonder, you lack basic understanding of the christian faith. Lol@ you thinking that if I saw co-redemptrix status of Mary that would make me leave the Church.

Well show us a passage of scripture that matches up with sacred tradition saying that Mary didn't see death but went straight to heaven. If you're bent on accepting an assumption, no puns intended, having gotten not an iota of evidence in scriptures, to prove or back up Catholic tradition, then what do you expect me to think?

Um did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the one that is wrong? That you are the one that doesn't understand the Bible? That you are incorrectly interpreting the Bible? That you miss a lot of what the Bible says?

How did the bible say you should interpret it? Didn't the very one you said became the first pope instructed us how not to do it? Let me give you a little reminder.

2 Peter 1:20 says, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

In other words no one person is allowed to interpret the scriptures in a way that will suit his or her fancy. One is not allowed to put a slant to the meaning of scriptures so as to suit oneself. Many persons have introduced teachings based on one passage alone, without fully grasping the context in which such a passage was derived.

There are many professed Christians who handle venomous serpents based on a gross misunderstanding of what Mark said and have taken a literal approach to that particular passage of scriptures.

Your case is somewhat different. You have ignored the scriptures all together, and have adopted Catholic traditions that don't even come close to what the scriptures teach. Not once have I gotten a Catholic to show from scriptures where it says that Mary didn't see death, but was taken to heaven before she died.

If you think you know all about the Bible, then I would say you are from the devil because you are too proud.

So all-of-a-sudden I know all about the bible,

The problem is not that we don't know what the Church teaches, the problem is that you don't understand your own faith. The problem is that you are fighting your own beliefs.

And I will say this much that the church to which I belong uses the bible as the rule of faith and practice. We look to Jesus' life and ministry as the perfect example. We dare not look to men as examples. The apostle Paul says that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. John says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Is it any wonder to you and the world for that matter that big grown men in robes are raping off little boys, and that men of the cloth are smoking and drinking and having no remorse about it whatsoever. Is that what you call not understanding the faith?

If I ask you questions will you be willing to answer, because those questions will get you to see that you believe in what the Church teaches too, you just don't know it.

Of course you're free to ask as long as those questions are bible related? Don't forget we are not on the same boat. We are from two different worlds.

How come you've never answered why would the true church, which you believe is the RCC, kill and maim millions of Christians just because they simply preferred following the bible rather than RC tradition?

The difference between Catholics and Non-Catholics, is that Catholics believe in sacred tradition and know it, non-catholics believe in sacred tradition and don't know it.

Well, name the traditions that you think we have in common.

I pray that one day you will realise what you believe. You believe in what Catholics believe you just don't know it yet. That's why I laugh at you guys a lot.

And I pray that one day God will convict you to leave before its eternally too late. Remember our days are numbered. We don't have much time left.

@ Magz

Or,

Perhaps it could be that certain words do not translate well into modern English, and that things we read may not mean what we think.

Thanks for reminding me of that idea too. Some times certain translations can be problematic.

@ Lady

As I have said most of the quotes came from your very own literature, and especially the older Catechisms.

Not sure if you're too young to remember about the article that came out in the Time Magazine about the Co-Redemptrix status of Mary. Aren't you even aware of your organization's doings?

Do you even stop to think of the implications of such an attempt of exaltation being conferred on a dead woman? If that 5th Marian dogma comes to pass, and assuming she is alive, it simply means she would be exalted to the level of another member of the Godhead. If she is dead it makes it even worse for Catholics to be worshiping a dead woman.

Note:

ZENIT reports on a letter sent by five cardinals, inviting prelates worldwide to join in petitioning Pope Benedict XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma, proclaiming Mary as Mother of humanity, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate for the human race.

This letter was sent on January 1, 2008 and sent by five cardinal co-sponsors of the Fatima Symposium, and sent to the world's bishops and cardinals asking them to sign a petition that asks pope Benedict XVI to proclaim Mary as the spiritual mother of humanity. I must laugh.

The fact that this is even being contemplated speaks to the heights of blasphemy against God.

Revelation 18:4 warns you thus, "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

There is far more than meets the eyes Lady. Don't place the organization before God. Follow Martin Luther's example, that great reformer and leave before the 7 great plagues of God begin to fall.

It says in the Bible that:

Jesus had skin the color of bronze, and hair like wool.

No white man has features like that. Angry

Also, he came from Bethlehem (Palestine), which is in the Middle East. People who originate in the Middle East have brown-colored skin, not white. And, you should also note that these are mostly desert lands that get alot of sun. The more sun you get, the more melanin your skin produces. This is why Africans are Black and Northern Europeans are White.

I agree that Jesus could never have been white, and neither could He have been a negroid.

But you still have to be careful how you decode Revelation as a book. In chapter 1 John sees Jesus walking through the seven golden candlesticks. Does it mean that John saw a giant stand that could accommodate the size of Jesus? How could Jesus literally walk between candlesticks?

John saw an appearance of Jesus in vision, but it doesn't mean that what he sees in every vision is to be taken literally. For example Ezekiel in vision saw Lucifer as an angel but described him as wearing certain precious stones as if those stones were apart of the angel. Another example is when John saw a sea of glass. Does it mean that there is literally a sea of glass, or did it appear to the prophet that way?

Could it be that the prophets in vision were limited in how they expressed what they saw?

@ Omenuko

Bobbaf, speak for yourself when parading about with this crap you call Bible prophecy.  Who is this “we…” you are talking about?  These same bishops and priests of the 1st century Church (who you claim fell away) were the disciples and followers of the apostles themselves.  How can you sit there and say that soon after the apostles passed away there disciples and followers (1st century bishops and priest of the Catholic Church) apostatized?

There is no need to be angry Omenuko

If the bishops didn't fall away as Paul had predicted then how do you explain the obvious and glaring variation of Catholic doctrines from Holy Scriptures. Its one thing to make a claim that the bishops did this, and the bishops did that, but when one compares what is being taught and practiced in the RCC then and now, there can be no misunderstanding that even in Paul's days he could see what was about to develop.

And where did you get the below list of titles attributed to the Pope?  What website or book put this together?

Some of them if not most of them were taken from past and near past Catholic Cathechisms and literature, besides those that came from x-priests and others who came to their senses and left the organization. If you examine some of the older versions of Cathechisms you will find some. I have access to some from former Catholics, and I have made it my duty to source them. I believe you of all persons have access to Catholic literature. You aught to know what is going on.

Quote
*  "Most Divine of all Heads."
   * "Holy Father of Fathers."
   * "Pontiff Supreme Over Prelates."
   * "Overseer of the Christian Religion."
   * "Pastor of Pastors."
   * "Christ by Unction."
   * "Abraham by Patriachate."
   * "Melchisedec in Order."
   * "Moses in Authority."
   * "Samuel in the Judicial Office."
   * "High Priest, Supreme Bishop."
   * "Heir to the Apostles; Peter in Power."
   * "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven."
   * "Pontiff Appointed with Plenitude of Power."
   * "Vicar of Christ."
   * "Vicar of the Son of God."
   * "Sovereign Priest."
   * "Head of all the Holy Churches."
   * "Chief of the Universal Church."
   * "Bishop of Bishops."
   * "Ruler of the House of the Lord."
   * "Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers."
   * "Chief Pastor and Teacher."
   * "Physician of Souls."
   * "Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."
   * "Infallible Pope."
   * "Head of All the Holy Priests of God"
   * "Chief bridge maker"

Well whoever gave you the list is mistaken.  Why not go to the source and find out what the titles of the Pope are; instead of going to second and third hand sources?  The actual titles of the Pope are:

-His Holiness The Pope;
- Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;
- Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;
- Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church;
- Patriarch Of The West;
- Servant Of The Servants Of God (I like this one the most);
- Primate Of Italy;
- Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province;
- Sovereign Of Vatican City State.

Jesus commissioned his apostles with the words, "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19–20).

Yet in all honesty do you believe that the Catholic church has observed all that Jesus commanded? How could that be when the RCC has continued to violate the heavenly priesthood ministry of Jesus Christ as the only High Priest, by attempting to replace it with an earthly man-made ministry, in which Christ in His own words has countered when He said in John 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by me, "

So when your organization describes Mary as queen of heaven, and Co-Redemtrix to the Godhead, is that how one heeds Christ's gospel commission?

The early Church understood Jesus’ words. What good was an invisible, theoretical, impractical unity? For the world to see a catholic unity, the oneness of the Church must be a visible, real, and physical reality. All of this the Catholic Church is. Since the earliest centuries Christians have confessed that the Church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." One because there is only one, visible, organic, and unified Church; holy because it is called out of the world to be the Bride of Christ, righteous and sanctified; catholic because it is universal and unified; apostolic because Christ founded it through his apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18), and the apostles’ authority are carried on through the bishops. Through the centuries, this creed has been the statement of the Church.

In theory that sounds wonderful, but in practice the true church was always suppressed. Paul said "all that live godly must suffer persecution"  Paul also reminded the congregations in Thessallonica that there would be a falling away first before the second coming of Jesus. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

In regards to the first recorded usage of the term Catholic, history informs us that Peter was the bishop of Antioch (before heading to Rome) before Ignatius; in fact, Church Fathers claim that Ignatius was ordained by Peter himself. Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. He lived with or near them and was an understudy of these special apostles. Ignatius is known and revered as an authentic witness to the traditions and practice of the apostles.

All that is debatable. Its funny how history makes the claim, which in itself doesn't sound all that certain, but the bible mentions nothing about Peter taking on such a role.

In the existing documents that have come down to us, Ignatius is the first to use the word catholic in reference to the Church. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote, "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans .

Its not the use of words that makes a church. Ignatius indeed was a good soldier of Christ, and history bears that out, but if Ignatius were alive today I am sure he'd not recognize the RC church as that church that he grew accustomed to in its simplicity and purity, whose doctrines were still closer to that which was taught by the 1st century apostles of Christ.  

Let me repeat the original summary again. Between AD 413 - 426 Augustine developed a spiritual twist with regards to the teaching of the millennium, and the kingdom of God. All this has been documented in his 22 volumes. His idea of the kingdom of God commencing was not for Christians to look for a literal coming of Christ to initiate the kingdom reign, but for the RCC to unite with Rome in establishing an earthly kingdom. He somehow fancifully twisted Daniel's metal man prophecy in chapter 2 where it talks about the stone breaking all other kingdoms after hitting the image's feet to mean the actual setting up of an earthly kingdom. From then on this became the concept of the kingdom of God as taught by the RC church.

Justinian emperor of Rome, and Pontifex Maximus whose office had moved from Rome to Constantinople in fear of the invasions from the barbarian tribes, fell for the concept of the papal church. He then favored Bishop John of Rome to become the head of all Catholics, but not before repremanding bishop of Constantinople who opposed John's claim to fame. It seems for many years during the reign of Roman emperors the RCC went without a pope, which brings into question the so-called lineage of apostolic succession.

More crap. . . .I looked up the information and dates corresponding to this time period and discovered that Vigilius was Pope in 539 and not John.  The Catholic Church has always had a Pope.  For your benefit I have posted the list of Popes that correspond to the time period in question (413-560ish) and you will see that there has never been a break in the chain of succession.

If we go back to the 5th century we would notice that the rise of the bishop of Rome to the pinnacle of power rested upon the extermination of the Arian kingdoms that controlled Rome. The last of the western Roman emperors were disposed in AD476, but Italy was ruled at the time by an Arian king named Odoacer who subjected the catholic bishops' activities. Theodoric the Ostrogoth who was also an Arian king overthrew Odoacer in AD 493, and this prevented Catholic supremacy from being fully realized. As long as this Ostrogothic kingdom ruled, the less promising it looked for the church.

It so happened that there was another Arian kingdom in Carthage who controlled the Mediterranean whose presence also prevented catholic supremacy. In the year AD533 emperor Justinian from the east  issued a document that recognized the bishop of Rome as head of all the holy churches, thus settling the religious questions once and for all. In AD534 he sent an army Belisarius' command that destroyed completely the Vandals. The army then turned toward Rome where they eventually drove out the Ostrogoths.

The Ostrogoths under Witiges carried out a seige upon Rome in AD537 that they maintained for a year, but a second armed force rose up against them and finally crushed them.

The year AD538 begins the first time that Rome was freed of Arian kings and the Catholic bishop of Rome held undisputed authority in the west. It is this year that we use to mark the beginning of the 1260 years of unbroken supremacy of the Papacy. The Catholic church then was to take a significant turn in how it affected history in the light of bible prophecy. The events that would unfold would be seen as those describing the very things that Daniel and Revelation spoke of.

Is it co-incidental that exactly 1260 years after AD538 that the pope would have been killed in exile, and the church's property and possessions taken by Napolean Bonaparte? The Catholic church in 1798 was literally brought to its knees, and exposed for all the wrongs it had committed? John the apostle said that the beast would have received a deadly wound. In February of 1798 the French general Berthier entered Rome, proclaimed a republic, and took the pope prisoner. The pope died in France shortly thereafter. Although a new pope was later elected, the papacy had lost its power. Its glory days were over; its supremacy had come to an end.

"The object of the French directory was the destruction of the pontifical government, as the irreconcilable enemy of the republic. . . . The aged pope [Pius VI] was summoned to surrender the temporal government; on his refusal, he was dragged from the altar. . . . His rings were torn from his fingers, and finally, after declaring the temporal power abolished, the victors carried the pope prisoner into Tuscany, whence he never returned (1798), The territorial possessions of the clergy and monks were declared national property, and their former owners cast into prison. The papacy was extinct: not a vestige of its existence remained; and among all the Roman Catholic powers not a finger was stirred in its defence. The Eternal City had no longer prince or pontiff; its bishop was a dying captive in foreign lands; and the decree was already announced that no successor would be allowed in his place." - --George Trevor, Rome: From the Fall of the Western Empire (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1868), pp. 439, 440.

The texts that point to the prophecy of the 1260-year period are as follows:

Daniel 7:25, "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

The he refers to the little horn power that arose out of the 10 barbarian kingdoms after Rome's demise in AD476.
       
Revelation 11:2, "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."

John speaks of the heavenly court, and the holy city, and how it would be trodden under foot for 42 months which is equal to 1260 symbolic days pointing to 1260 literal years. The Catholic doctrine of the priesthood has attempted to obscure the pure teachings of scriptures which point to our Heavenly High Priest Jesus Christ, who alone stands between human sinners and God the Father who is judge of all the universe.
     
Revelation 11:3, "And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."

The two witnesses are both the OT and NT. Both testaments point to the same time period of 1260 symbolic days, or 1260 literal years. During the 1260 years the RCC persecuted bible-believing Christians, suggesting that both OT and NT were neglected and replaced with church traditions and dogmas.
     
Revelation 12:6, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."

As was pointed out earlier in previous discussions, the woman in Revelation 12 represented the pure church of Jesus Christ, through whom He came. In other words the church gave birth to Jesus Christ. Verse 6 points out that this same body of believers would have been protected by God Himself. So while the Catholic church was predominant, the true church was underground hiding because of the persecution.
     
Revelation 12:14, "And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."

Here John uses the same expression "time, and times, and half a time" that was used by Daniel, that point to the same time period of 1260 years. God kept and nourished His church during this turbulent time period.
     
Revelation 13:5, "And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months."

The same time reference is provided as to how long this power would continue to blaspheme God's name and temple.

You still have not posted any sources or links to your stories. . . .The below is what I found on wikipedia.org and it gives a short explanation on what happened to the Ostrogoths.  The Catholic Church did not call a crusade to defeat them.  I told you before; the crusades were only called upon to defeat the Muslims in the middle east.  Go and read the history of the crusades.

So who influenced Justinian the eastern emperor in the first place to have crushed three separate Arian kingdoms that were from the original 10 barbarian kingdoms?

Byzantine emperor Justinian I. had always strived to restore as much of the West Roman Empire as he could and certainly would not pass up the opportunity.  In 535, he commissioned Belisarius to attack the Ostrogoths.  Belisarius quickly captured Sicily and then crossed into Italy where he captured Naples and Rome in 536 and then marched north, taking Mediolanum (Milan) and the Ostrogoth capital of Ravenna in 540.

With that final defeat,the remaining Ostrogoths went back north and (re)settled in south Austria. The Ostrogothic name wholly died,  The nation had practically evaporated with Theodoric's death. "The leadership of western Europe therefore passed by default to the Franks. Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the development of early medieval Europe", for Theodoric had made it "his intention to restore the vigor of Roman government and Roman culture".[12] The chance of forming a national state in Italy by the union of Roman and Germanic elements, such as those which arose in Gaul, in Iberia, and in parts of Italy under Lombard rule, was thus lost. As a result the Goths hold a different place in Iberian memory from that which they hold in Italian memory: In Italy the Goth was but a momentary invader and ruler, while in Iberia the Goth supplies an important element in the modern nation. That element has been neither forgotten nor despised. Part of the unconquered region of northern Iberia, the land of Asturias, kept for a while the name of Gothia, as did the Gothic possessions in Gaul.

The point is there is no trace of these kingdoms anymore, and that is exactly what the prophecy said, that the Papacy by whatever means would have exterminated them just so it could rule for the time period allotted. There is no going around the events.

Quote
Babylon, Medes, Persia, and Greece which is ludicrous, because that line up does not fit the prophecy. Historically speaking the Medes were never a kingdom that ruled dominantly, but were dominated by the Persians, which in light of the prophecy of chapter 7 only one kingdom waged war with Greece and that was Persia.

The lineup doesn’t fit the prophecy, eeh kwa?  What do you think I’ve been telling you?

You've been making some attempt to change the course of history when its obviously clear that no historical document will ever support your argument.

This, your prophecy is total garbage and nonsense.  Since history doesn’t fit your prophecy you then bend the scriptures and make up pseudo history so that it does.

My prophecy?    You're giving me way too much credit.

. tufiakwa (God forbid).  The Medes were an actual kingdom and they were a separate people from the Persians (fact).  The only relation between Medes and Persia is that they both originated from present day Iran.

But were later absorbed into the Persian kingdom, where Persia became the dominant one. How else would you explain one bear being used as a symbol to represent one kingdom in Daniel 7. If you read Daniel 8 it goes on to tell you of the battle between the joint forces of the Medes and Persians being represented by a single animal the ram, versus Greece that was represented by the He goat. It doesn't mention a war between the Medes and the Persians. It strengthens my argument that both the Medes and Persians became one force, and fought against Greece.

Daniel 8:20,21, "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king."

Ok, let me ask you again.  Where does Daniel say this empire will rule for 1260 years?  Chapter and verse, please.

I have provided a list above.

Now you want to back peddle and say that the Catholic Church started before 538AD. . . .It looks like common sense is slowly reaching you.  As far as the 538 AD date, (I will say it again) if you bothered to read history you will know that the Roman Emperor ruled the Roman Empire (later the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) during that time period and not the Pope.

Nothing has changed as far as the developments are concerned. I should have made a better comparison between the status the catholic church before AD538, and the same church between AD538 through AD1798. Please don't try to score points on my error because it really doesn't lessen the truth as to the role the catholic church played before the period and between the period. .

See above.  The germanic tribes (Ostrogoths and co.) where not annihilated, yes they were defeated in battle, but they were not annihilated.  They settled in present day France, Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain and influenced the cultures of the respective countries.

So where are the modern names for those three barbarian kingdoms may I ask? We can account for the continuation of the remaining 7, but the three Arian kingdoms that stood in the way of the church before AD538.

Go and re-prophecy your so called prophecy, please.  And Revelations 13 is referring to the Roman Empire (pagan Rome > Bablyon) and not the Catholic Church.

So what was the mark and number of pagan Rome may I ask?

The belief that Solomon was speaking of himself in this statement, "I am black and comely,, " is stupid, and without thought and research. This was never said by Solomon.  It was said by a dark-skinned woman.

The book upon closer study shows a dialogue that is not easily discernible. If you're going by context what sense would it make for Solomon to be saying he is black and comely (beautiful)?

Verse 5. I am black, but comely (O ye daughters of Jerusalem) as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. 6. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me, they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

Notice the speaker mentions the curtains of Solomon as a comparison. The speaker goes on to say that being the keeper of the vinyard made her skin dark, and suggested that that to her was a form of punishment.

Now, does that sound like the king to you?

@ Omenuko

Well, if you bothered to read early Church history as well as secular history corresponding to those times (1st and 2nd centuries AD) you would know that the Church leaders were bishops and priest of the Catholic Church.  The lay faithful followed the teachings of these same bishops and priests who intern received their teachings from the apostles themselves.  The term ‘Catholic Church’ was the general term used by members of the Church to distinguish them from heretics and followers of false gospels.  The majority of early Church Christians were members of the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope and bishops in communion with him.

And we are simply saying that those church bishops, and priests went contrary to what the original apostles taught. We are not denying that they were bishops and priests, be they self-proclaimed, but that they were already fulfilling Paul's prediction that there would be a falling away first, or apostasy, based on his letter to the Christians in Thessanolica.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

Which is subject to interpretation. That certainly didn't mean global.

Like I said in my previous posts I believe the Catholic Church was founded in the first century by Jesus Christ.

And the scriptures say differently.  Take a hard look at what the RCC teaches and honestly tell us that that was the church that Christ started.

The term ‘Catholic Church’ was not customarily used until false gospels and teachings began to surface in the first century and the term began to be used to allow the faithful to know where orthodox teaching is found.  The Catholic Church was not founded in 538 AD and did not temporarily end in 1798 (only a fool would claim such nonsense).

And guess who that false apostate church happened to have been? You're correct, the beginnings of the RCC that inserted pagan teachings in order to appease the Romans. Let me brief you as to when the RCC was officially incorporated as head of all Christianity throughout all of Rome. I should have been more specific about the time period, without giving the impression that the church started that time. So now that we have it cleared up let us get back to the meat of the whole thing.

Let me summarize a bit. Between AD 413 - 426 Augustine developed a spiritual twist with regards to the teaching of the millennium, and the kingdom of God. All this has been documented in his 22 volumes. His idea of the kingdom of God commencing was not for Christians to look for a literal coming of Christ to initiate the kingdom reign, but for the RCC to unite with Rome in establishing an earthly kingdom. He somehow fancifully twisted Daniel metal man prophecy in chapter 2 where it talks about the stone breaking all other kingdoms after hitting the image's feet to mean the actual setting up of an earthly kingdom. From then on this became the concept of the kingdom of God as taught by the RC church.

Justinian emperor of Rome, and Pontifex Maximus whose office had moved from Rome to Constantinople in fear of the invasions from the barbarian tribes, fell for the concept of the papal church. He then favored Bishop John of Rome to become the head of all Catholics, but not before repremanding bishop of Constantinople who opposed John's claim to fame. It seems for many years during the reign of Roman emperors the RCC went without a pope, which brings into question the so-called lineage of apostolic succession.

To cut the story short it was not until AD538 that John Bishop of Rome was finally acknowledged as Pope of the RCC. This occured before the Astrogoths were finally uprooted from Italy in AD539 that proved a threat to Rome, and who challenged the Pope's authority. As I have told you before it took a crusade to have completely anhilated the barbarian and up coming kingdom of the Astrogoths. It so happened that the Vandals and Heruleans as up-coming kingdoms were meted out the same fate.   

So in keeping with bible prophecy the RCC started its reign of terror in which it was not prepared to tolerate anyone who thought to oppose its new effort to establish the kingdom of God on earth, which was a direct anti-thesis to what was already taught by Christ and His apostles. 

You see your attempt to divert the truth about who the little horn truly represents doesn't hold water, because the historical timing is off. First you attempted to deceive the forum into making us think that Rome could not have been any of those 4 kingdoms in the line up of kingdoms from the prophecy of Daniel & by dividing the Medes and Persians as two successive kingdoms. Your line up went like this:

Babylon, Medes, Persia, and Greece which is ludicrous, because that line up does not fit the prophecy. Historically speaking the Medes were never a kingdom that ruled dominantly, but were dominated by the Persians, which in light of the prophecy of chapter 7 only one kingdom waged war with Greece and that was Persia.

It is important to notice that the image of Daniel 2 showed a chest and 2 arms laden with silver.  The 2 arms represent both the unity of the Medes, and the Persians. The bear in Daniel 7 is higher on one side signifying that Persia was the stronger of the twin kingdoms. Notice also that there are 2 other metals of silver and Iron that represent both Greece and Rome.

So in accordance with the metallic image the Gold represents Babylon; The breast and arms of silver represent Medes/Persia; the bronze represents Greece; and the iron represents Rome. If we were to line up the 4 beasts in Daniel 7 then the lion would represent Babylon; the bear would represent the combined Medes/Persia; the leopard would represent Greece; and the non descript beast would represent Rome.

It is now easier to see why your line up of the the 10 Seleucid (Greek Empire) kings wouldn't fit into the prophecy of the 10 horns of the 4th beast in chapter 7. If you had read the prophecy instead of merely ferreting information from some website showing erroneous historical dates and data about the Grecian empire, you would have noticed how long Daniel said that this little horn power would have ruled for. In short it was to rule for 1260 years.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes by every logic in the book could not have reigned for 1260 years. It had to have been a system that would have been in place that long.

So from AD538 until AD1798 the RCC ruled and dominated. It was not so much that there was not a Catholic church before that period in question, but what the Catholic church would have done during that special period of time. If I confused you I am sorry.  My emphasis on the period of 1260 years was to show the accuracy of the prophecy that the the RCC would be doing certain things during that time period, as emphasized by Daniel.

What are you arguing exactly?  Are you saying that Jesus and the apostles had the Bible in hand when they were preaching gospel?

In a sense yes. They had a compilation of some parts of the OT writings. They had scriptures from which Jesus often taught in the temple.

The bible is the Old and New Testament.  How can Jesus and the apostles preach from the New Testament when it wasn’t even written yet?  Jesus and the apostles used the Jew scriptures and holy books to preach.  In addition, the also preached by way of the Holy Spirit that guided them.  They did not have the Bible, because it wasn’t completely compiled until the 3rd century AD.

I am aware of that, I meant scriptures, not the bible.

Again with your unfounded notions.  The crusades were called upon to fight off the followers of Muhammad (Islam) when they took control of the Holy Land (which was initially Christian).  The crusades have never been associated with driving out the Germanic tribes (e.g., Ostrogoths, Vandals, Visigoths, etc.) from Europe.  The present day Italians, Germans, French, and Spanish are decedents of these same Germanic tribes.

No way! The dates prove me right. Justinian In preparation for the acceptance of John bishop of Rome as Pope, helped the RCC anhilate the three opposing kingdoms of the Vandals, Heruleans, and lastly the Ostrogoths, because they opposed the RCC doctrinally when they started teaching Arianism, which confronted the RCC's doctrine of the Trinity.

This fits nicely with Chapter 7 that correctly shows what would happen when the little horn, or Papacy would have been rising to power.  Besides, when you tie in all the other characteristics that point to the Papacy, and which is brought up in Revelation 13, no one in all honesty can attribute to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who lived in another dispensation, what rightly belongs to the Papacy.

Where does Daniel say the Catholic Church will rule for 1260 years?  For you to arbitrarily state that the Catholic Church started in 538 AD and temporarily ended in 1798 is utter nonsense and idiotic.  You, who claim to be a Bible student of prophecy…onye zuzu.

It is we who attribute the RCC to that time period of reign of terror, based on Daniel's prophetic code.  History is the fulfillment of prophecy, and we have used history to help us decipher that puzzle.

Will continue. . . .

I am looking forward to it.

As far back as St. Paul it was noticeable that an apostate movement was in the making. Listen to what he hinted at in this passage:

2 Thessalonians 2:4 says, ", Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Take a look at the following titles that have been attributed to Pontiffs and Popes.

* "Most Divine of all Heads."
* "Holy Father of Fathers."
* "Pontiff Supreme Over Prelates."
* "Overseer of the Christian Religion."
* "Pastor of Pastors."
* "Christ by Unction."
* "Abraham by Patriachate."
* "Melchisedec in Order."
* "Moses in Authority."
* "Samuel in the Judicial Office."
* "High Priest, Supreme Bishop."
* "Heir to the Apostles; Peter in Power."
* "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven."
* "Pontiff Appointed with Plenitude of Power."
* "Vicar of Christ."
* "Vicar of the Son of God."
* "Sovereign Priest."
* "Head of all the Holy Churches."
* "Chief of the Universal Church."
* "Bishop of Bishops."
* "Ruler of the House of the Lord."
* "Apostolic Lord and Father of Fathers."
* "Chief Pastor and Teacher."
* "Physician of Souls."
* "Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."
* "Infallible Pope."
* "Head of All the Holy Priests of God"
* "Chief bridge maker"

Information on some of the titles:

Pontifix Maximus is a papal title meaning in Latin "chief bridge maker" between earth and heaven. However, Jesus Christ is the only One who can claim this title because "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6. This was a title of the Roman Caesars and of the Roman Emperors of paganism.

Holy Father is a title the pope claims for himself. However, this title occurs only once in the Bible, and used when Jesus addresses His Heavenly Father in John 17:11 in His great prayer before His betrayal, arrest and crucifixion.

Father is a title that every Roman Catholic priest claims for himself and expects to be called. Jesus warns in Matthew 23:9 "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father which is in heaven." The catholic priest is not regarded in Scripture to be anyone's spiritual father. None of the chosen apostles ever addressed themselves as fathers.

Monsignor This means "my Lord", and this clearly is a title belonging only to God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Reverend is a title of many Roman Catholic priests and Protestant ministers. This is also a title for God in Psalms 111:9 "Holy and Reverend is his name." It is blasphemy for any man to take to himself a title of God.

"Mother of God" - Title given to Mary which denotes blasphemy, as it diverts worship to Mary. Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ's in His humanity. She simply served as a vessel for the Christ, and nothing more.

The RCC declares its hatred for bible believers:

"On August 24, 1527, Roman Catholics in France, by prearranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The Pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome."-Western Watchman, Nov.21, 1912 (Catholic)

"There was no village of the Vaudois valleys but had its martyrs. The Waldenses were burned; they were cast into damp and horrid dungeons; they were smothered in crowds in mountain caverns, mothers and babes, and old men and women together; they were sent out into exile in the winter night, unclothed and unfed, to climb the snowy mountains; they were hurled over the rocks; their houses and lands were taken from them; their children were stolen to be indoctrinated with the religion which they abhorred. Rapacious individuals were sent among them to strip them of their property, to persecute and exterminate them. Thousands of heretics" or Waldenses, "old men, women and children, were hung, quartered, broken upon the wheel, or burned alive and their property confiscated for the benefit of the king, and Holy See." - Thompson - The Papacy and the Civil Power

"That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history . . . It is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings." -- W. E. H. Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, vol. 2, p. 32, 1910 edition. (An excellent though lengthy article describing in detail the right of the Roman Catholic Church to do this, will be found in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 12, p. 266.)

Has the RCC changed in any form or fashion? The only thing that has changed about the RCC is her tactics. If given the opportunity, which is about to be given her soon, she will resort to the very same monstrous murderous acts she leveled at bible-believing Christians in the past, and in the not-so-distant past.

As President Reagan once said, when speaking of the Berlin wall ", tear down that wall" so must true bible-believing Christians be prepared to defend the truth with their lives. The time is coming when the bible will no longer be seen as the frame of reference for truth, for attempts are being made to neutralize God's words with nice-sounding fables.

How many parents are unnecessarily exposing their children to the RCC's pagan practices without even realizing it. How many kids have been indoctrinated in a subtle way to look to Santa Clause instead of Jesus.

By the way were you aware that Santa Claus is really St. Nicholas, and that innocent parents are exposing their children to the worshiping of a Catholic saint called St. Nicholas? You may think its just an innocent game and that the kids will out grow Christmas, but think again.

There is more Catholic tradition to come,

@ Lady

I see I have been gone for too long, I shall be back to speak on them.

I really missed seeing you. Welcome back,

It is really foolish for people to not research the sources of those who have information on the Catholic Church.
If you take what bobbyaf showed here as solid then you certainly don't care for your beliefs.

I am afraid those quotes came directly from your own organization.

Bobbyaf, before I open your yansh and lies please tell us the sources of the quotes you posted for me in the first page.

The sources are right in the quotes. Probably the sources have been destroyed, but you can copy what you see and consult your bishop. Or better yet read some of those old Cathechisms.

I will give you the chance to come clean first o.